[CESG] Results of CESG closed polls

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

Tom and Bryan

I would appreciate if you can publish the results of the 4 CESG polls 
closed on 28th Nov 2013, in particular those with conditions for the 
Optical WG creation.
This will allow us to report the changes to the CMC next week.
ciao
nestor
==============================

CESG-P-2013-11-001 Completion of the SEA SANA WG Approved
CESG-P-2013-11-003 Resolution Concerning the MOIMS DAI WG Chair Approved

============================================
CESG-P-2013-11-002 Changes to the CCSDS Website Regarding SANA
CSS AD  Barkley Erik 
 APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied) Please 
clarify what is meant by "a CCSDS Management Publication".  I assume by 
"SANA YB", the resolution is referring to   CCSDS 313.0-Y-1 (issued July 
2011) ? If so, is this not already a procedure manual for SANA and as such 
is this not already a "Management Publication" ?    I agree with the 
intent of the poll, but I want to be clear as to what re-classification 
implies. 11/22/2013 3:38 PM 
  ================================================= 
 

CESG-P-2013-11-004 New WG Approval - SLS Optical Communication WG
CSS AD  Barkley Erik 
 APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY No conditions to get the WG underway, but I 
believe there are some interesting technical considerations which I look 
forward to coordinating with the SLS Area and other areas as needed: 

1) Weather data: the concept indicates real-time weather data 
characterization; that is fine, but, true optical comm management will 
need to be significantly augmented by forecast data -- as such, some of 
the work in this WG may need to be about a magenta book for best practice 
re existing data  (assuming CCSDS does not invent this) formats such as 
AVN, ETA, etc. 

2) It seems to me that there will likely need to be some sort of 
cumulative distribution function that allows missions to understand the 
probabilities of utilizing an optical or set of optical ground 
stations/agency TT+C network for planning key mission events requiring 
telecom support. 

3) There may be a need to maintain, as part of produce item 2 above a, for 
example, 10 year data weather archive, particular/local to the optical 
ground station -- there may be a need for a recommendation, perhaps 
leveraging DAI for maintaining this archive. 

4) There may be an intersection with the Timelines BOF for possible 
forensic investigations -- if an optical comm connections suffer 
degradation or complete data loss, it will likely be beneficial to have 
the weather data rapidly correlated to the optical receiver data, etc in 
the temporal domain.   It may be an interesting enterprise model 
consideration as to the provider doing this (probably the best approach) 
vs the user. 

A final observation is that it may (eventually) be worthwhile to update 
the Cross Support Architecture once the concepts for weather data related 
service management are understood. 11/22/2013 4:58 PM 

SEA AD  Shames Peter 
 APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied) This 
proposed WG is to start a whole new era in CCSDS space communications.  At 
the same time it is focused upon only the two lower layers of the 
communications stack, physical and the "bottom" of the link layer, coding 
and synchronization. 

The charter acknowledges that there will be coordination with other 
working groups, but it provides little information reflecting a real 
understanding of what this might look like nor what the requirements are 
likely to be on other layers.  This should be more fully fleshed out since 
there are impacts on designs and implementations in the link, service 
management (SM), and SLE / CSTS working groups. 

The charter makes statements to the effect that "New standards are 
required for the modulation, coding, interleaving, synchronization, and 
acquisition of optical communications signals."  It is easy to accept that 
new physical signaling and acquisition will be required because of the use 
of optical frequencies.  There really ought to be some stated technical 
description of why all of these new layers are needed instead of this 
blanket assertion.  What is the rationale? 

There are experimental missions and strong differences of opinion about 
what is to be standardized.  There are also issues that are unexplored 
relating to combined or separate coding and modulation and whether deep 
space and near Earth operating regimes will need to be handled separately 
or combined.  All of these topics should at least be acknowledged as 
issues if not explored. 

There is mention of a "common framework" for optical comm, but there is no 
document planned that addresses this.  Perhaps there is a need for an 
"optical comm cross support architecture" document, a Magenta Book, as 
well? 

Lastly, this Concept Paper does not fulfill all of the requirements 
recently agreed to in the CESG.  These are: 

? purpose of the concept paper (why is the concept being proposed?); 
? description of the key technical features of what is being proposed; 
? clear statement of expected benefits from what is being proposed; 
? requirements of prospective missions; 
? relationship to existing standards; 
? identified deficiencies, flaws, and limitations in existing standards. 

Given the sweeping nature and importance of this new work I believe that a 
little more diligence is needed up front to get this started in the right 
direction. 11/20/2013 7:31 PM 
 
SIS AD  Scott Keith 
 APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied) 1. I 
believe the proposed ?Green Book for optical communications physical 
layer, coding and synchronization sublayer? should cover all of the 
protocol-related standards they mention at the top of the document 
(modulation, coding, interleaving, synchronization, acquisition), and I 
think it should be done FIRST, as a requirements and rationale document, 
BEFORE the Blue Books are done.  If they want to do some sort of 
?implementers? guide? to the protocol implementations afterwards, that 
would be fine too. 

2. I think that unless there?s way more to the Green Book for optical 
communications terminologies than it sounds like, that these could be 
incorporated into ?the standard? CCSDS glossary or, better yet, injected 
into the CCSDS Glossary that is maintained by SANA (
http://sanaregistry.org/r/glossary/glossary.html) ? a whole book for this 
seems like overkill AND like it?ll end up segregating their definitions 
off to somewhere where many people won?t think to look. 11/27/2013 6:57 AM 

 
 
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20131202/946f65ca/attachment.htm