[CESG] Results of CESG closed polls

[Shames, Peter M (312G)]

Dear Nestor & Gippo,

After further consideration about the SLS Optical Comm WG poll, and after discussing the issue with Bernie Edwards, the nominated WG Chair, I wish to change my vote on the Optical Communication WG poll to "Approve Unconditionally".   I believe that Bernie and the other key members of the working group understand that the identified issues do exist, but that they are prepared to work them within the consensus process.

Please remove these conditions and permit the WG vote to be sent to the CMC.

Best regards, Peter



From: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Monday, December 2, 2013 3:51 AM
To: Brian Oliver <briano at aiaa.org<mailto:briano at aiaa.org>>, Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [CESG] Results of CESG closed polls

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/f9278ef8/attachment-0001.html