[CESG] Additional presentation to CMC for extra items // SPP delays?

Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Mon Nov 13 11:07:21 UTC 2017


Peter, 
        it looks as you were not there when I clearly told Greg that 
"despite not strictly needed for updating of documents, you may want to 
prepare a concept paper to support the SLS resolution as it is much 
simpler editing in word that putting dates in CWE".

The Concept Paper we refer to is like the attached one (BTW, done by JPL 
guys) and contains the information to be relied anyhow to CMC to allow 
them to approve the new project. 

If you think that providing this kind of  information (normally 1 page of 
text and 1 or 2 pages for project definition) is provoking big delays, I 
will have to live with this.

Regards

Gian Paolo



From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Cc:     "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, "CESG -- 
CCSDS-Engineering 
SteeringGroup(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org)(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org)" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   13/11/2017 01:09
Subject:        Re: [CESG] Additional presentation to CMC for extra items



Gippo,
 
I know that these issues were raised prior to the WG and that both of them 
were discussed within the meetings.  Ken Andrews gave a presentation on 
the coding issue and Greg Kazz gave a presentation on the SPP which you, 
I, Jonathan, and Scott were all present for.
 
Given this situation, and the very straightforward fact that text was left 
out of a revised document without any explanation, I do not think that 
what I have stated is in any way unilateral.  In fact, it seems to me that 
it is you who are unilaterally throwing roadblocks in the way of forward 
progress in both of these cases.
 
Regards, Peter
 
 
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 1:15 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, CCSDS Engineering Steering 
Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Additional presentation to CMC for extra items
 
Peter. 
    Your points look as something that should have been discussed in WGs 
(were you there?)
 
I do not share your view and I reserve to complain if unilaterally 
presented to CMC. 
 
Ciao
 
Gian Paolo
Sent from my iPhone

On 12. Nov 2017, at 22:08, Shames, Peter M (312B) <
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi Nestor,
 
There is no NWI page for the SecWG inputs because they do not yet have a 
plan for the work with work level estimates.  What they have is a "plan 
for a plan".  When they get done planning I'll submit the requests.
 
And on the subject of "things causing delays to projects", I would point 
out that the CESG approval cycle for draft and "proposed for publication" 
document is not the only place where delays are introduced.  It's just the 
one where there are currently issues being voiced.  I have also given 
voice to the sorts of delays that have recently been introduced in the SPP 
and the AOS coding topics where work is being started, or errors are being 
fixed.  These were not included in the materials you prepared, but they 
are very real sources of delays and thus should also be addressed.
 
SPP
In  the case of SPP, even though there was a meeting that arrived at 
consensus on the need and the topics to be covered, involving people from 
three SLS working groups, and the SIS, SOIS and SEA areas, there was an 
added request to create a white paper prior to starting the project in the 
WG.  This is certainly covered by the procedures, but it is usually 
invoked when there is a totally new, and not well understood, topic being 
introduced.  In this case the work is quite well understood and the delay 
somewhat uncalled for.  Just as you have "streamlined" some of the CESG 
voting procedures to avoid delays the same thing could have been done in 
this case.
 
AOS coding
In the case of the AOS coding for uplink there is a clear and documented 
situation where the topic of using TM coding for AOS, for uplink and 
downlink, were documented in an earlier CCSDS spec, "TM Channel Coding", 
CCSDS 101.0-B-6, but got dropped from the current "TM Synch and Channel 
Coding" spec, CCSDS 
In the original 101.0 document, under Sec 1.3 Applicability, it stated, 
very clearly (emphasis added):
 
In addition to being applicable to conventional Packet Telemetry systems 
[1], the codes in this recommendation are applicable to the forward and 
return links of Advanced Orbiting Systems (AOS) [2]. For coding purposes, 
the terms ìTransfer Frameî and ìReed-Solomon Codeblockî as used in this 
recommendation are understood to be equivalent to the AOS terms ìVirtual 
Channel Data Unitî (VCDU), and ìCoded Virtual Channel Data Unitî (CVCDU), 
respectively. 
 
For reasons that are totally unexplained in any form that anyone can 
unearth, this was modified in the current 131.0, under Sec 1.0 Purpose, to 
read:
 
The purpose of this Recommended Standard is to specify synchronization and 
channel coding schemes used with the TM Space Data Link Protocol 
(reference [1]) or the AOS Space Data Link Protocol (reference [2]). These 
schemes are to be used over space-to- ground or space-to-space 
communications links by space missions. 
 
The consequence of this change, which appears to be both editorial and 
wrongly placed, iy should be in Applicability, as before, is to 
arbitrarily remove the explicit coverage for AOS uplink from the TM Synch 
and Channel Coding book.  The only explanation given was "this spec if for 
telemetry", therefore it should not be used for forward links.  But in the 
original 101.0 spec this case was covered, with no apparent issue being 
identified. 
 
The "remedy" proposed for this editorial error is, instead of just fixing 
the error, to require that a new "Magenta Book" be produced.  I'll leave 
out of the discussion that this would actually need to be a Blue Book, of 
type "utilization profile".  Requiring that this error be remedied by 
creation of a new Blue Book appears to be punitive and will cause expense 
of resources that could well be invested otherwise.  It also is calling 
for creation of a new type of document within SLS, for which there is no 
precedent.  If one were to treat this request as a new policy on SLS 
document there would be a whole slew of new documents required, specifying 
how to use TC over specific codes, TM over other codes, etc.  This is a 
waste of time and resources which could be very easily avoided by simply 
using a corriegendum to repair the missing text.
 
So my request is that you either treat all of these sources of delays in 
an even handed fashion or that you treat none of them.   Furthermore, if 
you do decide to include the materials that we discussed I would request 
that you explicitly include the points I made during the meeting on the 
proximal source of the issue being inadequate quality control at the 
originating WG and Area level.  All of these issues could have been 
avoided at CESG review if the documents had been closer to error free and 
complete when submitted.
 
Best regards, Peter
 
 
 
 
From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Nestor Peccia <
Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Date: Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 6:33 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [CESG] Additional presentation to CMC for extra items
 
Dear all. 

Please find attached the additional presentation to CMC. 

It still miss some inputs from SEA SEC WG for the NWIs. 

Comments welcome 



ciao 
nestor 
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.
 
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.
 


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/20171113/550c7cae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ConceptPaper-uplink coding_green_V2(cleanFinal).pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 61956 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20171113/550c7cae/attachment.obj>


More information about the CESG mailing list