[CESG] CESG-P-2020-06-003 Approval to release CCSDS 141.0-P-1.1, Optical Communications Physical Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Wed Jul 1 13:19:17 UTC 2020

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 141.0-P-1.1, Optical Communications 
Physical Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) have been disposed to the 
satisfaction of the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions. The 
Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling to authorize release 
for Agency review.
-------------- next part --------------
From: Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5800)  
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 7:54 AM 
To: Edwards, Bernard L. (GSFC-5600) <bernard.l.edwards at nasa.gov>; Hamkins, Jon (JPL-3300)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory] 
<jon.hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Cc: Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int; Braatz, Lena E. (HQ-CG000)[BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON] <lena.e.braatz at nasa.gov> 
Subject: RE: OPT WG action required for Conditions on 141.0-P-1.1: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 15 June 2020

Bernie,

       Sorry I missed it earlier.  Yes these are good and satisfy the poll conditions.

   Kind regards,

         Jonathan

Jonathan Wilmot
NASA/GSFC 
Code 580 Senior Engineer for Flight Systems
cFS Software Architect
CCSDS SOIS Area Director
Office 301-286-2623
Cell 301-751-2658

From: Edwards, Bernard L. (GSFC-5600) <bernard.l.edwards at nasa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 6:04 PM 
To: Hamkins, Jon (JPL-3300)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory] <jon.hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov>; Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5800) 
<jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov> 
Cc: Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int; Braatz, Lena E. (HQ-CG000)[BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON] <lena.e.braatz at nasa.gov> 
Subject: RE: OPT WG action required for Conditions on 141.0-P-1.1: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 15 June 2020

Just re-sending

From: Edwards, Bernard L. (GSFC-5600)  
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 2:45 PM 
To: Jon Hamkins <Jon.Hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov>; Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5800) <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov> 
Cc: Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int; Braatz, Lena E. (HQ-CG000)[BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON] <lena.e.braatz at nasa.gov> 
Subject: RE: OPT WG action required for Conditions on 141.0-P-1.1: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 15 June 2020 
Importance: High

Hi Jonathan,

I hope you and your family are doing well in these strange and difficult times.  Jon Hamkins has recommended the changes below to 
address your concerns.  I just want to make sure this is satisfactory before we send them off to the optical communications working 
group members for approval.

Thanks,
Bernie

On: 17 June 2020 14:14, "Jon Hamkins" <Jon.Hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

Bernie,  
I see the condition from Erik Barkley has already been resolved.  
Here are my suggestions on satisfying the conditions of Jonathan Wilmot. 
Please add data types and/or units to managed parameters.    
Table 7.2 telemetry signaling center frequency selection parameter -18 to 28.  Is that a signed 
integer or is -17.9 valid?

In Table 7.2, replace "-18 to 28" with "Integer in {-18, -17, ..., 27, 28}"  
For consistency, repeat this change in Table 7.1, and in two unlabeled tables in section A.2.1.5. 

Similar for Beacon pulse repetition rate, is 1.02 kHz valid? Why make software engineers guess?
In Table 7.2, replace "0 to 20 kHz" with "CW or real number ranging from 0 to 20 kHz" 

For consistency, repeat this change in last table in section A.2.1.5, item O3K-5.2.  

Not sure why Figure 2-1 is different from other CCSDS documents. Why was term Transfer Frame 
Generation used instead of the term Data Link Protocol which is used in many other CCSDS books? If 
Transfer Frame Generation is the preferred term, consider changing for producing Transfer Frames 
to for generating Transfer Frames in the section above.
Accept this condition and remove the change to Figure 2-1. 

I believe this change was initiated in conjunction with the GFP discussion.  The Pink Sheets for GFP 
related things are currently on hold.  
If we agree with this response, we should check that other stakeholders are also fine with the change.  I think you could send a 
note to the mailing list about it, asking for concurrence.  (The typical wording I have seen from WG chairs is that no response 
within a timeframe (e.g., a week) will be taken as concurrence.)  
     ----Jon 
Jon Hamkins 
Lead Technologist 
33   |   Communications, Tracking, and Radar Division 
O 818-354-4764   |   M 626-658-6220  

JPL   |   jpl.nasa.gov
On 6/16/2020 3:35 PM, Edwards, Bernard L. (GSFC-5600) wrote:

Begin Forwarded Message: 
From: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPT WG action required for Conditions on 141.0-P-1.1: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 15 
June 2020 
Date: 16 June 2020 17:42 
To: "Edwards, Bernard L. (GSFC-5600)" <bernard.l.edwards at nasa.gov> 
Cc: "Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int" <Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int>, "Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, 
"Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> 

Dear Bernie,  
       as you have the poll for 141.0-P-1.1 ended up with some conditions.  

For Erik's condition (reported here after fro convenience) it looks the usual issue with Pink Sheets including only modified 
pages.  
In such a case is is up to Tom to reply.  
Tom, can you confirm whether this is the case?  
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  1) Please check and correct, as needed, the document 
pagination; the CESG review copy goes straight from page 7-1, to A-4; there appears to be some 
missing pages. 

For Jonathan's condition (reported here after fro convenience), please  draft a reply such that we can send out an SLS agreed 
response.  
Note that I support keeping Figure 2-1 as it was in Issue 1 and do not see any reason for changing it as we describe the CCSDS 
stac in the third column even if some agency can opt for different solutions.  
Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions):    
Please add data types and/or units to managed parameters.    
Table 7.2 telemetry signaling center frequency selection parameter -18 to 28.  Is that a signed 
integer or is -17.9 valid?  
Similar for Beacon pulse repetition rate, is 1.02 kHz valid? Why make software engineers guess? 
Not sure why Figure 2-1 is different from other CCSDS documents. Why was term Transfer Frame 
Generation used instead of the term Data Link Protocol which is used in many other CCSDS books? If 
Transfer Frame Generation is the preferred term, consider changing for producing Transfer Frames 
to for generating Transfer Frames in the section above.  

Best regards  

Gian Paolo  

----- Forwarded by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA on 16-06-20 23:26 -----  

From:        "CCSDS Secretariat" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>  
To:        cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org  
Date:        16-06-20 22:46  
Subject:        [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 15 June 2020  
Sent by:        "CESG-All" <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> 

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-06-001  
Approval to publish CCSDS 131.21-O-1, SCCC  
Extension (SCCC-X) (Orange Book, Issue 1) 
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 June 2020 and ending 15 June 2020: 

               Abstain:  1 (20%) (Merri) 
Approve Unconditionally:  2 (40%) (Burleigh, Calzolari) 
Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Barkley, Shames) 
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%) 
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: 

   Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):   1)  
Please spell out the title on the cover page of  
the document.  Why can the title not be spelled  
out in full (Serially Concatenated Convolutional  
Coding Extension) ?  This would be of service to  
anyone scanning through the set of CCSDS  
standards to understand this more quickly. 
   Peter Shames (Approve with  
Conditions):   Just to avoid future confusions,  
explicitly change 1.3 Applicability from: 

This Experimental Specification document applies  
to future data communications over space links  
between CCSDS Agencies in cross-support situations. 

To: 

This Experimental Specification document applies  
to future near Earth space to ground data  
communications over space links between CCSDS  
Agencies in cross-support situations. 

Total Respondents:  5 

No response was received from the following Area(s): 

   SOIS 

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions 
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate  
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-06-002  
Approval to publish CCSDS 131.31-O-1, CCSDS Space  
Link Protocols over ETSI DVB-S2X Standard (Orange Book, Issue 1) 
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 June 2020 and ending 15 June 2020: 

               Abstain:  1 (25%) (Merri) 
Approve Unconditionally:  2 (50%) (Burleigh, Calzolari) 
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  1 (25%) (Shames) 

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: 

   Peter Shames (Disapprove with  
Comment):  This document contains the same  
language, with the same concerns, as were  
identified in the proposed revisions to the  
existing DVB-S2 standard.  Until such time as the  
SLS Area reaches closure on those issues, and  
related issues raised in ALACAMAD, publication of  
this document is also an issue. 

Total Respondents:  4 

No response was received from the following Area(s): 

   CSS 
   SOIS 

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Disapproved 
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            No Action 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-06-003  
Approval to release CCSDS 141.0-P-1.1, Optical  
Communications Physical Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review 
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 June 2020 and ending 15 June 2020: 

               Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Merri) 
Approve Unconditionally:  3 (50%) (Shames, Burleigh, Calzolari) 
Approve with Conditions:  2 (33.33%) (Barkley, Wilmot) 
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%) 
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: 

   Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  1)  
Please check and correct, as needed, the document  
pagination; the CESG review copy goes straight  
from page 7-1, to A-4; there appears to be some missing pages. 

   Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with  
Conditions):   Please add data types and/or units  
to managed parameters.  Table 7.2 telemetry  
signaling center frequency selection parameter  
-18 to 28.  Is that a signed integer or is -17.9  
valid? Similar for Beacon pulse repetition rate,  
is 1.02 kHz valid? Why make software engineers guess? 
Not sure why Figure 2-1 is different from other  
CCSDS documents. Why was term Transfer Frame  
Generation used instead of the term Data Link  
Protocol which is used in many other CCSDS  
books? If Transfer Frame Generation is the  
preferred term, consider changing for producing  
Transfer Frames to for generating Transfer Frames in the section above. 

Total Respondents:  6 

All Areas responded to this question. 

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions 
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate  
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-06-004  
Approval to publish CCSDS 211.0-B-6, Proximity-1  
Space Link ProtocolData Link Layer (Blue Book, Issue 6) 
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 June 2020 and ending 15 June 2020: 

               Abstain:  1 (20%) (Merri) 
Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Barkley, Shames, Burleigh, Calzolari) 
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%) 
Total Respondents:  5 

No response was received from the following Area(s): 

   SOIS 

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally 
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

_______________________________________________ 
CESG-All mailing list 
CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org 
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all
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).
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 --------------
From:	Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent:	Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:02 PM
To:	CCSDS Secretariat
Cc:	bernard.l.edwards at nasa.gov; Hamkins, Jon (US 3300); 
jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov
Subject:	RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2020-06-003 Approval to release CCSDS 141.0-P-
1.1,  Optical Communications Physical Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for  
CCSDS Agency review

Follow Up Flag:	Follow up
Flag Status:	Flagged

Categories:	Poll Condition Closure

My apologies.  The document was reading so nicely, page-by-page, that I forgot that these were pink 
sheets.  Condition withdrawn.

-Erik 

-----Original Message-----
From: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 13:51
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: bernard.l.edwards at nasa.gov; Hamkins, Jon (US 3300) <jon.hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov>; 
jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2020-06-003 Approval to release CCSDS 141.0-P-1.1, Optical 
Communications Physical Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Erik:

Your approval condition on CESG-P-2020-06-003 Approval to release CCSDS 141.0-P-1.1, Optical 
Communications Physical Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review:

"1) Please check and correct, as needed, the document pagination; the CESG review copy goes straight 
from page 7-1, to A-4; there appears to be some missing pages"

has been rejected by the Secretariat.

 From CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, Organization and Processes for the Consultative Committee for Space Data 
Systems (Yellow Book, Issue 4, April 2014) [emphasis added]:

6.2.7.2.1.3     In cases where only limited discrete changes are 
proposed to a published normative document, only the pages containing substantive changes ("Pink 
Sheets") may be released for review.

B1.2    RECOMMENDED STANDARD BRANCH
d)      Draft Recommended Standard Revision (Pink Book or Pink Sheets)
         . . .
Pink Books are issued when changes to an existing Blue Book are extensive enough to warrant review of 
the entire document; Pink Sheets (changed pages only) are issued otherwise.  In the case of Pink Sheets, 
only changes to the current issue of the Blue Book are subject to review.

At 04:49 PM 6/16/2020, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
>Dear Document Rapporteur,
>
>The CESG poll to approve release of CCSDS 141.0-P-1.1, Optical 
>Communications Physical Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency 
>review concluded with conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the 
>conditions directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions 
>and CC the Secretariat on all related correspondence.
>
>
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-06-003 Approval to release CCSDS 
>141.0-P-1.1, Optical Communications Physical Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue
>1.1) for CCSDS Agency review Results of CESG poll beginning 1 June 2020 
>and ending 15 June 2020:
>
>                 Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Merri) Approve Unconditionally:  
>3 (50%) (Shames, Burleigh, Calzolari) Approve with Conditions:  2
>(33.33%) (Barkley, Wilmot) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  1) Please check and 
> correct, as needed, the document pagination; the CESG review copy goes 
> straight from page 7-1, to A-4; there appears to be some missing pages.
>
>     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions):   Please add data 
> types and/or units to managed parameters.  Table 7.2 telemetry 
>signaling center frequency selection parameter -18 to 28.  Is that  a 
>signed integer or is -17.9 valid? Similar for Beacon pulse  repetition 
>rate, is 1.02 kHz valid? Why make software engineers guess?
>Not sure why Figure 2-1 is different from other CCSDS documents. Why 
>was term "Transfer Frame Generation" used instead of the term "Data 
>Link Protocol" which is used in many other CCSDS books? If "Transfer 
>Frame Generation" is the preferred term, consider changing "for 
>producing Transfer Frames" to "for generating Transfer Frames" in the 
>section above.
>
>
>Total Respondents:  6
>
>All Areas responded to this question.
>
>
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
>conditions have been addressed
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *