[CESG] Re: New CESG Polls

[Thomas Gannett]

Dear ADs and DADs:

After CESG-P-2015-06-001 was posted, the technical editor requested 
additional editorial changes to two of the proposed SLE Pink Sheet 
documents. The e-mail message requesting the change, along with PDF 
copies of the pages containing the proposed changes, are attached. 
These files have also been uploaded to the attachment directory for the poll.

Please consider the additional proposed changes when responding to the poll.

Best regards,
Tom Gannett

At 07:08 PM 6/7/2015, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
>Dear CESG Members,
>
>Two new CESG polls have been posted to the CWE:
>
>- CESG-P-2015-06-001 Approval to release Space Link Extension 
>Service Specification Pink Sheets for CCSDS Agency review
>- CESG-P-2015-06-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 504.0-B-1 Cor. 1, 
>Attitude Data Messages
>
>These polls can be accessed via the following link:
>
><http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/polls/default.aspx>http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/polls/default.aspx
>
>The closure date for these polls is 22 June 2015.
>
>NOTE TO CC RECIPIENTS: Only Area Directors and Deputy Area Directors 
>vote on CESG polls.

Thomas Gannett
+1 443 472 0805 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150612/1b8d2b25/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 911x2p20_AdditionalChangePage.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 13688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150612/1b8d2b25/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------


Dear Tom,

below you'll find an email from John Pietras regarding inaccurate notes in the RCF and ROCF "Pink" Books (911.2 and 911.5) that you might already be working on. I completely agree with John's observation and with his suggestion how to fix the observed inaccuracy. Can you please include those changes in the updated books?

Thank you and best regards,
Wolfgang



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Inaccurate NOTEs in RCF and ROCF sections 1.1
Datum: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:39:20 +0000
Von: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com>
An: Wolfgang_._Hell at t-online.de <Wolfgang_._Hell at t-online.de>



Wolfgang,
The NOTE under section 1.1 of the RCF Blue Book (911.2) states:
“The first issue of reference [1] defines the Return Master Channel Frames (Rtn MC Frames) service and the Return Virtual Channel Frames (Rtn VC Frames) service as two distinct services. Subsequent study has indicated that it is preferable to define one service that provides the functionality of both. The RCF service defined here does just that. It is anticipated that the next issue of reference [1] will take the same approach, deleting the Rtn MC Frames and Rtn VC Frames services and replacing them with the RCF service.”
 
However, reference [1] (the Cross Support Reference Model) now refers to the B-2 version of the CSRM, so “the first issue” is irrelevant. More important, the “next issue” (B-2) did not in fact make the change, so the note is inaccurate.
 
I suggest the following re-wording of the NOTE to make it less sensitive to the update cycle of the CSRM:
“Reference [1] defines the Return Master Channel Frames (Rtn MC Frames) service and the Return Virtual Channel Frames (Rtn VC Frames) service as two distinct services. Subsequent study has indicated that it is preferable to define one service that provides the functionality of both. The RCF service defined here does just that. It is anticipated that a future issue of reference [1] will take the same approach, deleting the Rtn MC Frames and Rtn VC Frames services and replacing them with the RCF service.”
 
Similarly, the NOTE under section 1.1. of the ROCF Blue Book (911.5) should be corrected to read as follows:
“Reference [1] defines the Return Master Channel Operational Control Field (Rtn MC-OCF) service and the Return Virtual Channel Operational Control Field (Rtn VC-OCF) service as two distinct services. Subsequent study has indicated that it is preferable to define one service that provides the functionality of both. The ROCF service defined here does just that. It is anticipated that a future issue of reference [1] will take the same approach, deleting the Rtn MC-OCF and Rtn VC-OCF services and replacing them with the Rtn OCF service.”
 
If you concur with these suggested changes, you can forward this email to Tom Gannett.
 
Best regards,
John 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 911x5p20_AdditonalChangePage.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 13743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150612/1b8d2b25/attachment-0001.pdf>