[CESG] FW: [SSG] Proposed changes to SCID frequency bins, was Re: Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Fri Nov 30 13:50:10 UTC 2018
Peter,
can you please clarify what is really the requested correction
against the current https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/320x0m7.pdf ?
I tried to find it through the sequence of mails attached to the attached
mail that contain attached mails but I really got confused.
I can only think this is an update to Table 2-1: ITU/IEEE Frequency Bands
but it is not clear which one precisely.
I added SLS-RFM Chairs to this distribution for the relevant checks.
Last but not least, I remember we had some discussion with CSS guys about
Frequency bands definitions in https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/902x1b1.pdf
Since the Simple Schedule Format Blue Book refers to that table, I think
that a statement/check by CSS Area about possible side effects is also
required.
Enrico, Dennnis,
once the proposed correction is clearly defined, can you please
and comment?
Thank you all and have a nice week end
Gian Paolo
From: "Shames, Peter M \(312B\) via CESG" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
To: "SANA Steering Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, CCSDS Engineering
Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 29-11-18 21:51
Subject: [CESG] FW: [SSG] Proposed changes to SCID frequency bins,
was Re: Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Sent by: "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
Dear SSG,
Do any of you not concur that we should resolve this issue now by aligning
the SCID frequency ranges used by the SANA to do allocations with the ITU
values?
We will let the document catch up as we can get the Corrigendum edits
done. Tom Gannett has said that he will fold this corrigendum to the SCID
assignment procedure, CCSDS 320.0m7, into the changes needed to
accommodate USLP.
I acknowledge that it is not the process we would normally follow, and
would not want it to set a general precedent of any sort, but I think this
is a special case where we made a mistake and really should correct it as
quickly as possible to avoid allocation problems.
Please signal your agreement, or lack thereof, by return email.
Thanks, Peter
From: "osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de" <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 11:08 AM
To: Peter Shames <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett
<thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Cc: "SANA Steering Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: AW: [SSG] Proposed changes to SCID frequency bins, was Re:
Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Totally agree with you Peter
Von: Shames, Peter M (312B) [mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. November 2018 19:02
An: Peinado, Osvaldo Luis; thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Cc: SANA Steering Group (SSG)
Betreff: Re: [SSG] Proposed changes to SCID frequency bins, was Re:
Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Hi Osvaldo,
That is more or less what I had in mind. After talking to my Spectrum
Manager I think we made a mis-step in using the IEEE "RADAR" letter and
frequency designations instead of the ITU ones. The RADAR designators
were easy to find and clear enough, but they ignore the finer points of
the exact ranges of frequencies that are used by the Spectrum Managers of
all agencies to assign frequencies to the SRS, EES, and FSS missions we
service. As a result some of the IEEE frequency boundaries had the effect
of splitting ITU frequency allocation ranges. This change fixes that.
The important thing we need to do with this registry is to ensure that any
mission using CCSDS protocols, at their ITU compliant assigned
frequencies, has a SCID that is unique within their correct frequency bin.
Regards, Peter
From: "osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de" <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 1:29 AM
To: Peter Shames <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett
<thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: AW: [SSG] Proposed changes to SCID frequency bins, was Re:
Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Hi Peter
It will be possible to accept this request (because it will match with the
changes) and do as Tom proposed the update later on?
Just and idea
Osvaldo
Von: SSG [mailto:ssg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] Im Auftrag von Shames,
Peter M (312B) via SSG
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. November 2018 22:02
An: Thomas Gannett; 'SANA Steering Group (SSG)'
Betreff: Re: [SSG] Proposed changes to SCID frequency bins, was Re:
Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Hi Tom,
Ok. I think we need to get this sorted out soon since we have an SCID
allocation to make. I'm going to assume that these changes will go
through the whole process unscathed and recommend that the SANA use the
new bin boundaries in doing the allocation. I am frankly surprised that
this has not surfaced before.
Remind me, were you going to make the USLP mods yourself or did you need
some clues?
Thanks, Peter
From: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:01 AM
To: Peter Shames <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, "SANA Steering Group
(SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: 'Space Assigned Numbers Authority' <info at sanaregistry.org>
Subject: RE: Proposed changes to SCID frequency bins, was Re: [SSG]
Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Peter: I propose holding off on the USLP corrigendum and doing both as a
single corrigendum. –Tom
Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805
From: Shames, Peter M (312B) [mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 12:49 PM
To: SANA Steering Group (SSG)
Cc: Tom Gannett; Space Assigned Numbers Authority
Subject: Proposed changes to SCID frequency bins, was Re: [SSG]
Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Importance: High
Guys,
I have just met with the JPL Spectrum Manager. It's a little funny, but
in the allocation of these frequency bins for the CCSDS 320.0-M-7 update
we did not pick up this disconnect between the IEEE Std 521TM-2002(R2009)
boundaries for RADAR frequency bins and the sets of specific frequencies
allocated by the ITU for space research (SRS), Earth exploration (EESE),
and fixed satellite (FSS) services. The frequencies for the IEEE Radar
letter designators (C, X, Ka, etc) are similar to, but not completely
aligned with, these ITU allocations, and that seems to be the source of
the problem. The ITU frequency range allocations are defined at a much
finer granularity than these letter designated bins that reflect our
common use. I used the attached table of NTIA / ITU frequency
designations, and feedback from our JPL spectrum manager, for guidance.
For our purposes what we need is a set of bins that align with the
commonly allocated ITU frequencies for SRS, EES, and FSS, such that they
associate with a set of spacecraft and the frequencies that they are
defined, by international agreement, to operate at. This mis-alignment
has caused some of the bins we adopted from the Radar designations to be a
little out of step with how our space operations community has been used
to referencing them. We need to make some changes to these in order to
get the frequency ranges associated with these designators to align with
the ITU allocations and common usage.
I want to get SSG agreement on this before we finalize this, and I want to
ask for CESG concurrence. Ultimately we will need to modify the 320.0-B
document, using a corrigendum, and also edit the associated SANA bin
frequency ranges. The attached spreadsheet has the current Table 2-1
from CCSDS 320.0-M-7 and the proposed changes.
Please review this and indicate if you see any issues.
Thanks, Peter
From: SSG <ssg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of "SANA Steering
Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Reply-To: Peter Shames <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 12:07 PM
To: Space Assigned Numbers Authority <info at sanaregistry.org>
Cc: "SANA Steering Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [SSG] Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Hi Guys,
I am researching this. I do not know if it was a lack of precision in the
real frequencies for the specified bands or if it is some local usage of
"band" names that is causing the confusion. We need to tie the requests
to actual frequencies, regardless of what they are called in any given
country.
I'll get back to you as soon as I have an answer.
Thanks, Peter
From: Space Assigned Numbers Authority <info at sanaregistry.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:57 AM
To: Peter Shames <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Space Assigned Numbers Authority <info at sanaregistry.org>
Subject: Fwd: Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Hi Peter,
We got a SCID request with frequency information not matching the
frequency band mapping defined in CCCSDS 320.0-M-7. As we asked for
feedback we got the response below and we are not qualified to answer it.
Could you please review it?
Thank you.
Best regards,
Julien Bernard
Space Assigned Numbers Authority
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:57:21 +0000
From: BOIROUX Philippe <philippe.boiroux at thalesaleniaspace.com>
To: Space Assigned Numbers Authority <info at sanaregistry.org>,
ESA_SCID at esa.int <ESA_SCID at esa.int>
Dear All,
If I understand correctly w.r.t the IEEE FB Name column of the table
(and not to the Near Earth Downlink column) and as our TM frequencies
are into the range :
- 11700 MHz up to12500 MHz (considered as Ku Band for us), we have to
declare our TM into the band X-Band "7-12 GHz" (for the range 11700 MHz
up to 12000 MHz) and Ku-Band "12-18 GHz" (for the range 12000 MHz up to
12700 MHz)
- 18177.5 MHz up to 20075 MHz (considered as Ka Band for us), we have to
declare our TM into the band K-Band "18-27 GHz"
Is it correct ?
Best regards
[@@ THALES ALENIA SPACE INTERNAL @@]
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Space Assigned Numbers Authority [mailto:info at sanaregistry.org]
Envoyé : vendredi 23 novembre 2018 16:48
À : BOIROUX Philippe; ESA_SCID at esa.int
Cc : Space Assigned Numbers Authority
Objet : Re: Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Philippe,
Whatever the operating location is, your frequency band mapping does not
match with the one in CCCSDS 320.0-M-7 document.
The problem is rather that we need you to confirm that you selected the
correct value for frequency band, considering the CCSDS mapping.
Best regards,
Julien Bernard
Space Assigned Numbers Authority
On 18-11-23 04 h 13, BOIROUX Philippe wrote:
Dear All,
Is the problem linked to the "Operating Location" ?
What "operating Location" do we have to declare for a telecom satellite ?
Perhaps it is better to select "------" instead of "Near Earth" .
Best regards
Ph. Boiroux
[@@ THALES ALENIA SPACE INTERNAL @@]
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Space Assigned Numbers Authority [mailto:info at sanaregistry.org]
Envoyé : jeudi 22 novembre 2018 15:45
À : ESA_SCID at esa.int; BOIROUX Philippe
Cc : Space Assigned Numbers Authority
Objet : Confirmation on SCID request for SES-17
Dear Harald and Philippe,
We need some confirmation on your SCIDs request for SES-17.
In the two blocks of information provided below and according to the
mapping (see joined document) from CCCSDS 320.0-M-7
(https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/320x0m7.pdf), the frequency band you
provided does not match with the frequencies from the special request:
Organization: ESA [1.3.112.4.1.12]
Spacecraft: SES-17 [1.3.112.4.7.1304]
Agency Representative: Dr Harald Ernst [1.3.112.4.2.39]
Version: 1
Link Type: Return
Channel Protocol: TLM
Frequency Band: Ku-Band
Special Request: Flexible from 11700 MHz up to 12500 MHz
Comments:
Created By: Philippe Boiroux [1.3.112.4.2.138]
Status: Provisional
Organization: ESA [1.3.112.4.1.12]
Spacecraft: SES-17 [1.3.112.4.7.1304]
Agency Representative: Dr Harald Ernst [1.3.112.4.2.39]
Version: 1
Link Type: Return
Channel Protocol: TLM
Frequency Band: Ka-Band
Special Request: From 18177.5 MHz up to 20075 MHz
Comments:
Created By: Philippe Boiroux [1.3.112.4.2.138]
Status: Provisional
Could you please confirm your request or provide us with some corrections.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20181130/6c3c49c9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CESG
mailing list