[CESG] Old comemnts........: SEA Resolution SEA-R-2016-09-001: Request Agency Review for publication of revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment Control Procedures

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

Hi Gippo,

Thanks for being thorough.  Apparently I missed those.  I'll make the changes and send the revised doc to Tom Gannett today.  The rest of the resolution and poll processing can stand as they are.

It's a little hard to tell exactly what was requested in some of these changes, so I have marked what I think is the affected text in red.  Please verify that these are correct.

Thanks, Peter



From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 8:01 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Old comemnts........: [CESG] SEA Resolution SEA-R-2016-09-001: Request Agency Review for publication of revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment Control Procedures

Dear Peter,
        it looks as the comments provided in the attached mail on July 12 have been overlooked.
Ciao

Gian Paolo


----- Forwarded by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA -----

From:        Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
To:        "CCSDS CESG --" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc:        "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int, "SANA Steering Group\(SSG\)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:        12/07/2016 11:43
Subject:        Re: [CESG] SEA Resolution SEA-R-2016-07-001: Request publication of revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment Control Procedures
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
________________________________



Dear Peter,
       I passed the document to Enrico that had a quick look at it with the result given by the attached comments to be considered at the appropriate point in time with respect to Poll Preatation, Agency Review or other.

Thanks to Enrico and best regards to everybody

Gian Paolo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Ka-band missing frequency range in Table 2
Ka-Band SRS or EES 27-40 GHz

25.5 - 27 GHz

Ka-NE

31.8 – 32.3 GHz

Ka-DS




I suggest adding an additional line as:
Ka-Band SRS
27-40 GHz

37.0-38.0 GHz

Ka

37.0-38.0 GHz

Ka




This allocation can be used for both NE and DS missions so I suggest calling it simply Ka. Please note that I do not know what the color code in table 2 means (some frequencies in blue...)

2) Statement below table 2

Replace allocated by assigned and allocation by assignment  (they have different meanings in ITU).

From:

The SCID assignment procedures require that each registered spacecraft specify the one (or more) frequency bands that they have been allocated by their agency spectrum manager.  It is expected that every spacecraft, early in its development process, will acquire a frequency allocation for uplink and downlink.   The assignment of one or more GSCIDs will be done relative to the number of frequency bands that a spacecraft uses, but every attempt will be made to assign the same SCID in all bands if that is possible.

To:

The SCID assignment procedures require that each registered spacecraft specify the one (or more) frequency bands that they have been assigned by their agency spectrum manager.  It is expected that every spacecraft, early in its development process, will acquire a frequency assignment for uplink and downlink.   The assignment of one or more GSCIDs will be done relative to the number of frequency bands that a spacecraft uses, but every attempt will be made to assign the same SCID in all bands if that is possible.

3) SCID request form (non normative)

The given print out in old Annex A provided as example shows that the exact frequencies have to be entered differently from the rest of the document specifying only the frequency bins. It is believed that many agencies would not like to have the exact frequencies in a SANA on-line database. Therefore, the form even if called example should be adjusted to align with the text:
NOTE - The form requests only the frequency bands, it does not require the exact operating frequencies.  As long as the same VN and FB is used for uplink and downlink only one GSCID need be assigned.

Alternatively, the example shall be deleted.

I'll ask the SANA guys to fix this if they have not already.  I think that the form, in general, needs to be updated.  I would prefer to leave in an example (a correct one) since it shows users what to expect.

4) Editorials

In Table 2, EES shall be replaced by EESS (occurs twice).

ITC shall be changed to ITU in Annex A.

In ITU, the T stands for Telecommunication (singular). In the magenta book all occurrences are in plural.

WRC in Annex A is spelled out as Radiocommunications (plural) whereas it is singular.






From:        "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:        "CCSDS Secretariat" <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Cc:        "SANA Steering Group\(SSG\)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:        23/09/2016 23:46
Subject:        [CESG] SEA Resolution SEA-R-2016-09-001: Request Agency Review for publication of revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment Control Procedures
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
________________________________


[attachment "320x0b6c1_mods_7-23Sep16.docx" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]

Dear CCSDS Secretariat,

Please find attached the SEA resolution concerning the request for Agency Review for publication of the revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment Control Procedures Magenta Book.  The major changes are the inclusion of frequency band bins for allocation of Qualified SCID (Q-SCID), references to the new registries defined in the RMP, and re-classifying the document as a Magenta Book based upon its type.

This fixes all of the conditions raised in the earlier CESG vote and the CMC feedback that we also received.   There are no remaining conditions that I am aware of aside from the one requesting that this document be given an Agency review because it is a major change to a key document and has an effect on the Agency procedures for requesting and relinquishing SCIDs.    In accordance with one CMC condition it does not require the specification of uplink and downlink frequencies, but it does require correct specification of the uplink and downlink frequency bands, aligned to the actual frequency ranges and not just to some colloquial use of, for example, "K-band" when the actual frequency in use falls into the X-band range.

Thanks, Peter

==========================================================================

SEA-R-2016-09-001  Request Agency Review of revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment Control Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The System Engineering Area,

CONSIDERING that:

The SEA SANA Steering Group (SSG) has produced a revision of the existing Blue Book called the CCSDS GLOBAL SPACECRAFT IDENTIFIER FIELD:
CODE ASSIGNMENT CONTROL PROCEDURES (CCSDS 320.0-B-6), and that
The source document, CCSDS 320.0-B-1, was originally directly published as a CMC Blue Book document, and that
The specific major changes to the document have already been reviewed and agreed to by the CESG and CMC, and that
All of the requested updates have been made to satisfy the identified conditions.

And RECOGNIZING that:

A CCSDS Area Director is responsible for requesting CESG concurrence prior to publication, and that
The CCSDS Organization and Processes (A02.1-Y-4 cor 2) in Section 6.2.2.2 requests that the AD forward the draft documents to the CESG, and
notify the Chief Technical Editor.

And RECOGNIZING that:

The CCSDS Organization and Processes (A02.1-Y-4 cor 2) in Section 6.1.4.3 defines this type of book (a process or procedure description) as a Magenta Book, and that
Sec 6.2.7 requires periodic review and re-confirmation of Normative Track documents.

RESOLVES to request:

That the Chief Technical Editor ready the document for review, and that
The document be re-classified as a Magenta Book, to properly characterize it based on its contents, and that
The Secretariat create the necessary CESG poll to request the CESG review and approve release of this document for Agency Review, and that
Once the CESG poll succeeds that the CMC be polled to approve the document for Agency Review.


 _______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg

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/20160928/b8f7aad2/attachment.html>