[CESG] CESG-P-2017-08-009 Conditions

Thomas Gannett thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Mon Oct 30 16:33:43 UTC 2017


Dear CESG Members:

Conditions for approval of CESG-P-2017-08-009 Approval to publish CCSDS 766.2-B-1, Voice and Audio Communications (Blue Book, Issue 1) have been resolved to the satisfaction of the ADs who voted to approve with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling.


Thomas Gannett
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Wilmot [mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:53 AM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (312B); osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de
Cc: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-08-009

Scott,

    All conditions have been satisfied.  It is future work to address on-board protocol stacks.

What I don't know is what further I need to do to close the poll and accept the document. Is there a process for that?

    Kind regards,

      Jonathan

On 10/10/2017 11:49 AM, Burleigh, Scott C (312B) wrote:
> Great - thanks.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de [mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:45 AM
> To: Burleigh, Scott C (312B) <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>; 
> Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov
> Cc: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
> Subject: AW: AW: AW: AW: Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-08-009
>
> Hi Scott
> So far as I understood it, yes.
> As Jonathan proposed we will need to start to work in an update for the Space Gateway (new book or pink pages) and we will do that when we finish with the RTP video and voice book.
> But for the current book, there is everything ok Best Regards Osvaldo
>
>
> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Burleigh, Scott C (312B) [mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Oktober 2017 17:08
> An: Jonathan Wilmot; Peinado, Osvaldo Luis
> Cc: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
> Betreff: RE: AW: AW: AW: Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-08-009
>
> Osvaldo, are all the CESG poll conditions now resolved, or are there still some other resolutions needed?
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Wilmot [mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov]
> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 5:51 AM
> To: osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de
> Cc: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; Burleigh, Scott C (312B) 
> <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-08-009
>
> Dear Osvaldo,
>
>     I accept your answer and understand the limitations that achieving consensus impose. I will assume the additional details needed by the Deep Space Gateway and similar programs will be addressed in other documents.
>
> Tom how do we change my poll to accept?
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>        Jonathan
>
> On 10/6/2017 7:53 AM, osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de wrote:
>> Dear Jonathan,
>> Thank you for your E-mail.
>> You should come to our WG, this point is very good and was discussed 
>> 3 years ago Your example is correct , for the American section using the S/G channel 3 and 4. On the other side for the channels 1 and 2 it  is not, we still use the Motorola system, with Mpeg3  and there is no encryption of the voice.
>> For the Russian section ACC is not used and the voice in directly transmitted in G.729 over RF also to the ground over the Russian channels, the  Japanese segments uses also G.729 over RF, ACC, but  for S/G uses KA and not S band and they use the system similar as you describe it, but  after that converted into analog voice to the ground.
>> The CSS (Chinesse Space Station) uses G.728 over RF , ACC, Ku band and converted into a kind of Chinese Mpeg5.
>> That is the reason why we do not go into details, to reach consensus  in this international standard we need to stay in a high level of description, if we go into details ( and I like your proposal) we will never agree or we would have too many different exceptions.
>> There were huge discussions between the CSS and ISS audio and video communications, why the ISS uses Ku for video and S-band for Audio for example, and not only Ku band for everything like the CSS. Our American colleagues explained  the Chinese ones the historical and coverage differences for this reasonable separation,  but that was not the opinion of the CSS people for example.
>> I hope that I answered your question.
>> Best Regards
>> Osvaldo
>>
>> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jonathan Wilmot [mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov]
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2017 21:34
>> An: Peinado, Osvaldo Luis
>> Cc: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov
>> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-08-009
>>
>> Dear Osvaldo,
>>
>>      I am satisfied with your answers on 1-5.  I just spoke with 
>> Scott about question 6 and I think I understand the issue. The 
>> document discusses several use cases but I did not see a complete one 
>> for on-board voice communications, with or without ground contact. 
>> This would include crew headsets and EVA with local onboard recording.
>> Example data flow: EVA voice in G.729 over RF into a Habitat radio 
>> into TTGbE frames into the ACC converter box into a data file 
>> recorder? Would the data recorder timestamp, mix, add metadata as to 
>> what station(s) was talking, and then encrypt the file? Maybe these 
>> details are mission specific and not part of the document in which 
>> case it makes sense that the document does not address that level of detail.
>>
>>      Kind Regards,
>>
>>          Jonathan
>>
>> On 9/26/2017 11:27 AM, osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de wrote:
>>> Dear Jonathan,
>>> Thank you for your feedback, see my answers below
>>>
>>> Von: Jonathan Wilmot [mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov]
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 18. September 2017 21:10
>>> An: Peinado, Osvaldo Luis
>>> Cc: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov
>>> Betreff: Re: AW: Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-08-009
>>>
>>> Dear Osvaldo,
>>>
>>>       I just had a couple issues/questions on Voice and Audio Communications 766.2-B-0 that are likely just my misunderstanding the context. I am sorry these comments are so late. I was not part of the agency review team and was unaware until the CESG poll.
>>>
>>> 1) Section 2.2.2 CFDP  -   It could be more clear to just state that the recommendation is that audio file transfer be reliable and why.  It states now that CFDP class 1 should be over LTP-Red or Bundle Protocol reliable delivery, otherwise use class 2, all of which are reliable.
>>> [[OP]] good point, that was a Rid from Gian Paolo that we should change and reduce the text during the agency review, The SIS area recommend to use the class 1 or 2, not a preference, but I sure that Scott can answer this question a lot better than me.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) Section 2.2.3 DTN  - Does this section address real-time voice/audio, file transfer, or stream?
>>> [[OP]] in the previous section we mention that DTN is only used if 
>>> realtime communications are not possible or not needed We are working now in a new book using DTN and RTP where probably we could use DTN for real time communications, but not yet. if the delay is more than 5 seconds that is not usable for voice anyways.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) Section 2.2.4 Transport Technologies - Is the "Transport" term intended to be the ISO definition or just a general term?  Is there a better term to use?
>>> [[OP]] we have a too long discussion with our American, European, Chinese, Japanese and Russians colleagues about that few years ago and we all agree that internationally is the best option to use the term transport technologies for all the space agencies using voice communications.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4) Section 5.2.1   99% reliable comm is required for emergency comm?  Shouldn't an emergency system handle voice over unreliable comm in a robust way. The protocols should be designed to handle this. The intent of my comment is that the systems should have a nominal 99% reliability but the protocols should degrade gracefully when faults happen.
>>> [[OP]] I agree  if the emergency is related to the end to end communications and in both ways, voice is only in one way in this case .  We are talking about human space flight, the ISS and the MCCs have a requirement for that, voice is mission critical. The point is similar to case of the Apollo 13, you can stop and shut down everything but not the voice. In the network the voice have also the highest priority, also between the MCCs. It is so important that the MPLS providers named the highest priority class, the voice class.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5) Section 3.2.24  "Black phone" is a domain specific term, could the more descriptive term "hardwired phone" be used?
>>> [[OP]] that is correct, that is an specific domain term,  an international standard for voice communications, it is a voice book.
>>>
>>>
>>> 6) Should the protocols be designed for simultaneous real-time exchange and recording/archiving? I did not see a recommendation for this use case.  As an example, if VoIP is used, how would the recorder get the RTP packets. or deal with any encryption or privacy issues?
>>> [[OP]] That are some discussions to design new protocols as you 
>>> mention but nothing happened yet in the operations world I do not understand this point, we use VOIP in an everyday basis, with encryption or not, there are not issues, not in the last 15 years of human space flight, VOIP uses SIP and G.711 or G-729 for the voice transmission, the RTP and UPD are the transport basis. We and NASA record only the payload of the RTP packets, not the packet itself, the encryption is done at network level and restricted by user access to the voice system. For medical voice is an end to end encryption of the transmission but not the G.711.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> [[OP]] Osvaldo
>>>
>>>
>>>       Kind Regards,
>>>
>>>               Jonathan
>>>
>>> Jonathan Wilmot
>>> NASA/GSFC
>>> SOIS Area Director
>>>
>>> On 9/18/2017 3:30 AM, osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de<mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de> wrote:
>>> Thank you Tom
>>> I will do it
>>> Best Regards
>>> Osvaldo
>>>
>>>
>>> Von: Thomas Gannett [mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net]
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 16. September 2017 00:15
>>> An: Peinado, Osvaldo Luis
>>> Cc: jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov<mailto:jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>;
>>> Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
>>> Betreff: Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-08-009
>>>
>>> Dear Osvaldo:
>>>
>>> The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 766.2-B-1, Voice and Audio Communications, closed with conditional approval.
>>>
>>> The conditions are unknown to the Secretariat; however, Jonathan Wilmot indicated he would contact the WG directly.
>>>
>>> It is important that the Secretariat be CCed on all correspondence related to the disposition of poll conditions.
>>>
>>> If any changes to the document are needed in order to satisfy the conditions, please notify me so that I can send the current Word file (or advise me of the specific changes so that I can make them).
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-08-009 Approval to publish CCSDS 
>>> 766.2-B-1, Voice and Audio Communications (Blue Book, Issue 1) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2017 and ending 14 September 2017:
>>>
>>>                     Abstain:  0 (0%)
>>>     Approve Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Barkley, Merri, Behal, Burleigh, Calzolari)
>>>     Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Wilmot)
>>>     Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>>>
>>> CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>>>
>>> Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions): Satifactory answers to a 
>>> short list of questions. The questions will be sent to the SIS/Voice 
>>> Working Group chair by CoB 9/15/2017
>>>
>>>
>>> Total Respondents: 6
>>> No response was received from the following Area(s):
>>>
>>> SEA
>>>
>>> SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
>>> PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
>>>
>>> Thomas Gannett
>>> thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>>> +1 443 472 0805
>>>
>>>
>>>




More information about the CESG mailing list