[CESG] SOIS Comment on MIB configuration data: [EXTERNAL] Fw: SLS reply to SEA Conditions on Poll CESG-P-2019-12-002 Approval to release CCSDS 131.3-P-1.1, CCSDS Space Link Protocols over ETSI DVB-S2 Standard (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Mon Feb 3 20:32:58 UTC 2020

Hi Gippo and Jonathan,

It may come as no surprise that I think both of you are "right" in some sense, but that the best path may lie in the middle of the two positions that you have staked out.

I think Gippo is "right" in that in most of our specs where we have MIB specified we do not tend to make it be a formalized part of the spec.

I think that Jonathan is "right" in that some added formality would make these MIB values be more easily interpreted and exchanged for interoperability.

Where I differ from Gippo is that I think you could add more clarity in how the MIB and its fields are defined without straying into the "this is how you implement it" territory.  In fact, just using those Tables 5-1 and 5-2 as examples, the only way to read that is that "transfer frame length" is an integer with a range and that CRC is an enumerated list that references specified, documented, algorithms.  In the case of Table 5-2 it is even clearer that Transmission Mode is an enumerated list, Baseband pulse shaping is a float, and that scrambling code, and other fields, are integers.  That is what they state, either explicitly, i.e. "List of integers", or implicitly, i.e. fractional numbers with a decimal point.  Specifying these as a data type and value range pair instead of the ambiguous "allowed values" is not implementation, just clarity.

Where I differ from Jonathan is that some of the interface detail specificity that is possible with the EDS and DoT may be overkill for this purpose, which is not necessarily thought of as an "interface".  It may, as is pointed out in many specs that include a "MIB", just be a list of the kinds of parameters that implementations may choose to put into a table, or embed in code, in their implementations.  From the PoV of the standard these may be treated as "implementation concerns".  That means that there is not any "thou shall" language about how to implement them.  But that doesn't mean that they aren't important, nor does it mean that treating them a little more formally wouldn't be a good thing.

From the PoV of our users I will assert that knowing just exactly which choices were made during the implementation of programs that are intended to interoperate is essential.  It may not be a concern HOW they are implemented, that is an implementation choice, but it certainly matters THAT they are implemented and which options are available.  This is something that could well be handled in a fully specified PICS that fills out the PICS pro forma for two (or more) imp[lementations.  But that, I will assert, would be made more simple if all of the data types and values that might appear in a MIB were clearly identified, and in a way where they are easy to document.  Use of the EDS / DoT is a documented method for doing this, but so is use of the PICS pro forma, as long as the data type and value ranges that are possible are clearly specified along with the options that are actually implemented,

I think a little more clarity in the specs that include MIBs would be a benefit to everyone.

Cheers, Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Monday, February 3, 2020 at 5:38 AM
To: "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc: Gilles Moury <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, Kenneth Andrews <kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, Greg Kazz <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: SOIS Comment on MIB configuration data: [EXTERNAL] Fw: SLS reply to SEA Conditions on Poll CESG-P-2019-12-002 Approval to release CCSDS 131.3-P-1.1, CCSDS Space Link Protocols over ETSI DVB-S2 Standard (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Jonathan,
        first of all, it is our understating that the specific comment addressed by this discussion is a comment and not a condition.
Can you please confirm?

For the remaining part of this e-mail I include in cc also Greg as you expressed similar comments for SLP documents.

You are talking about the "formality of protocol MIB definitions" and in your attached file you actually start from the tables in CCSDS 131.3-P-1.0 Chapter 5 adding two columns.
Actually the column "Units" is not really an addition as the column "Allowed Values" in the book actuary covers your two columns Units and Range.
The real addition is column "Data Type" that is really computer oriented; i.e. an implementation detail IMO.
However section APPLICABILITY for this book (and for most of the SLS Area books) clearly states that "The Recommended  Standard  includes  comprehensive  specification  of  the  services  and  protocol  for inter-Agency cross support.  It is neither a specification of, nor a design for, real systems that may be implemented for existing or future missions." giving a full justification for the way Managed Parameters are presented.

The details you are asking are really pointing to the implementation and also depend on the way the real system is implemented (e.g. an hardware encoder on board could use different programming languages and characteristics with respect to an on ground decoder running over sophisticated software).
Even sympathising with the fact that "missions could exchange the MIB configuration data", I find this is not pertinent for these SLS Books but it rather represents something that should be addressed by other standards as e.g. your Electronic Data Sheets or the exchange of Service Management Data or the CSTS Functional Resource Model.

Best regards

Gian Paolo

From:        "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
To:        "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Cc:        "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, "Gilles Moury" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, "Andrews, Kenneth S (JPL-332B)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, "Shames, Peter M (JPL-312B)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date:        31-01-20 20:46
Subject:        RE: [EXTERNAL] Fw: SLS reply to SEA Conditions on Poll CESG-P-2019-12-002 Approval to release CCSDS 131.3-P-1.1, CCSDS Space Link Protocols over ETSI DVB-S2 Standard (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
________________________________

Gian Paolo,

   I think we should have a broader discussion on the issues with this topic of operational interoperability.  Maybe bring it up at the next CESG telecon. CCSDS has been inconsistent with the formality of protocol MIB definitions. I am pushing to have MIB definitions be complete enough with unique names such that a missions could exchange the MIB configuration data. This way both ends of a protocol would operationally match.

Please let me know if the attachment makes sense.

   Kind regards,

         Jonathan

Jonathan Wilmot

NASA/GSFC Code 582

cFS Software Architect

CCSDS SOIS Area Director

301-286-2623

From: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:15 AM
To: Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820) <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc: Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int; Gilles Moury <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>; Andrews, Kenneth S (JPL-332B)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory] <kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>; Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: SLS reply to SEA Conditions on Poll CESG-P-2019-12-002 Approval to release CCSDS 131.3-P-1.1, CCSDS Space Link Protocols over ETSI DVB-S2 Standard (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Jonathan,
       here attached the mail already sent to Peter etc.
The requested work on the other books is already in progress (approved projects) and there is no reason to defer the start of the Agency Review for the Pink Sheets to 131.3-B for this.

With respect to your specicif comment "It should be an overall goal to provide for common operational interfaces for Managed parameters published in CCSDS standards. To that end, more specific common data types should be provided: signed/unsigned Integer, Boolean, Enumerations (ON, OFF), (Short, Normal, Both) …, float, etc. This would allow the exchange of MIB parameters based on common names and types between organizations. The binary encoding of those MIBs could be specified in CCSDS Electronics data sheets, or XTCE." can you please clarify what you want precisely and formulate it one or more PIDs in the usual FROM/TO from?
Otherwise there is no way to consider this comment.

Best regards

Gian Paolo

----- Forwarded by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA on 28-01-20 10:11 -----

From:        Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA
To:        "Shames, Peter M \(312B\)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc:        "Andrews, Kenneth S \(332B\)" <Kenneth.S.Andrews at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Kenneth.S.Andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "Gilles Moury" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr<mailto:Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>>, Massimo Bertinelli/estec/ESA at ESA, "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>, "Burleigh, Scott C \(312B\)" <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "Erik Barkley" <Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date:        27-01-20 18:18
Subject:        Re: SLS reply to SEA Conditions on Poll CESG-P-2019-12-002 Approval to release CCSDS 131.3-P-1.1, CCSDS Space Link Protocols over ETSI DVB-S2 Standard (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

________________________________

Dear Peter,
       I wonder if you had time to consider this SLS reply.

I also copy Scott (that expressed your same condition) and Erik (that expressed the same concern as comment) reiterating that the work to allow uplink of AOS and USLP fixed-length frames is in progress for all the 3 coding books concerned. However the contribution from some book editors is less timely than the one from the 131.3 Book Editor.

Unless there is clear intention of penalising the faster book editor,  there is no reason to defer the start of the Agency Review for the Pink Sheets to 131.3-B.

Thank you all for a prompt reaction to fix this issue.

Gian Paolo

From:        Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA
To:        "Shames, Peter M \(312B\)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc:        "Andrews, Kenneth S \(332B\)" <Kenneth.S.Andrews at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Kenneth.S.Andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "Gilles Moury" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr<mailto:Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>>, Massimo Bertinelli/estec/ESA at ESA, "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Date:        20-01-20 17:43
Subject:        SLS reply to SEA Conditions on Poll CESG-P-2019-12-002 Approval to release CCSDS 131.3-P-1.1, CCSDS Space Link Protocols over ETSI DVB-S2 Standard (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

________________________________

Dear Peter,
       despite the poll, will only close in some time, SLS have internally discussed about your "APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS" vot.
The conditions are attached (thanks to Gilles!).

Here below the SLS position.
-------------------------------
The SLS Area and the C&S WG reject SEA AD Conditions because the work requested by SEA AD is already agreed and in progress in the C&S WG.

.C&S WG has currently 3 CWE projects running:

1) Space link protocols over ETSI DVB-S2 standard, Issue 2
This update to the Blue Book will produce issue 2, enabling the use USLP frames as well as allowing space-to-space and ground-to-space links applications.
https://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispForm.aspx?ID=692&ContentTypeId=0x0100B63160D64FE81342BE42A874DE7E703D<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwe.ccsds.org_fm_Lists_Projects_DispForm.aspx-3FID-3D692-26ContentTypeId-3D0x0100B63160D64FE81342BE42A874DE7E703D&d=DwMGaQ&c=ApwzowJNAKKw3xye91w7BE1XMRKi2LN9kiMk5Csz9Zk&r=oqaLKgbprssjRKcKzadGIePtu_DWF3UbezbcN7JWLp0&m=y4TtGXm6TkDunBbs9P1Em2yfE5oBSxV1BJ1Cd4YlA5c&s=PzChcllVokmqH0jxCpb_GDdB_LhVceNvGvKqrToyE2c&e=>
This is the project undergoing poll for Agency review.

2)“TM Synchronization and Channel Coding” Issue 4
The Recommended Standard for TM Synchronization and Channel Coding contains specifications to be used by space missions on synchronous communications links. This update to the Blue Book will produce issue 4, and will add a short chapter that specifies a subset of codes to be used in ground-to-space links. Input of USLP frames will also be addressed.
https://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispForm.aspx?ID=688&ContentTypeId=0x0100B63160D64FE81342BE42A874DE7E703D<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwe.ccsds.org_fm_Lists_Projects_DispForm.aspx-3FID-3D688-26ContentTypeId-3D0x0100B63160D64FE81342BE42A874DE7E703D&d=DwMGaQ&c=ApwzowJNAKKw3xye91w7BE1XMRKi2LN9kiMk5Csz9Zk&r=oqaLKgbprssjRKcKzadGIePtu_DWF3UbezbcN7JWLp0&m=y4TtGXm6TkDunBbs9P1Em2yfE5oBSxV1BJ1Cd4YlA5c&s=UqJ6goEMo5EqD--DUhoYKj6A_wwlr7pQ6NWiPQO-N8o&e=>
This project is pending on NASA input.

3) Flexible Advanced Coding and Modulation Scheme for High Rate Telemetry Applications, Issue 2
This update to the Blue Book will produce issue 2, enabling the use USLP frames as well as allowing space-to-space and ground-to-space links applications.
https://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispForm.aspx?ID=690&ContentTypeId=0x0100B63160D64FE81342BE42A874DE7E703D<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwe.ccsds.org_fm_Lists_Projects_DispForm.aspx-3FID-3D690-26ContentTypeId-3D0x0100B63160D64FE81342BE42A874DE7E703D&d=DwMGaQ&c=ApwzowJNAKKw3xye91w7BE1XMRKi2LN9kiMk5Csz9Zk&r=oqaLKgbprssjRKcKzadGIePtu_DWF3UbezbcN7JWLp0&m=y4TtGXm6TkDunBbs9P1Em2yfE5oBSxV1BJ1Cd4YlA5c&s=m-jQWJMjqGIB4v5yLNTSthDUDbwew435KmwbO3kkMOw&e=>
This project is pending on ESA input.

Therefore there is no reason to defer the start of the Agency Review for the Pink Sheets to 131.3-B.
--------------------------------------------

Best regards

Gian Paolo

[attachment "PS DVBS2 condition.docx" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]

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<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).[attachment "DVB_S2 MIB tables.xlsx" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]

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/20200203/7fc039b2/attachment-0001.htm>