[CESG] Comments (and only comments) on space link directionality discussion yesterday

Sun Jun 7 10:29:42 UTC 2020

Dear Erik,
        indeed all started in 2017 and at Fall 2017 C&S WG had a principle 
agreement for re-introducing the codes already used for AOS uplink, 
together with a down selection of more recent codes. It is therefore very 
unfortunate that this issue has not been finalised.
As you know, WGs are input driven . Since Fall 2017 such inputs have been 
either missing or modifying the (previous) position(s). Consequently, the 
progress has been slow.
The history was reported at the CESG telecon on 10 March 2020, as per 
second slide of the attached ppt (also available in CWE).

With respect to the Forward Frame Blue Book, this book specifies the 
service provision, leaving to other books the service production. The way 
forward is to mention, w.r.t. the supported uplink options,  the relevant 
CCSDS books in progress , with eventual Editorial Corrigenda at due time.
This has been the approach taken by many other CCSDS recommendations, and 
it has been no problem.
Notice that in FF CSTS those books are, correctly, referred to only as 
informative reference.

It is my understanding that currently C&S WG is working at the update of 
131.0-B, 131.2-B and 131.3-B, and hopefully they can quickly converge on 
this.
Kind regards,
Margherita

--------------------------------------------------------------
Margherita di Giulio
Ground Station Systems Division
Backend Software Section (OPS-GSB)

European Space Agency ESA/ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49-6151-902779
e-mail: Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int

From:   "Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>, 
"Tai, Wallace S (US 9000)" <wallace.s.tai at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc:     "CESG -- CCSDS-Engineering Steering Group (cesg at mailman.ccsds.org) 
(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org)" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   04/06/2020 18:40
Subject:        Comments (and only comments) on space link directionality 
discussion yesterday

Dear CESG Chairs,

Now that I have had a little time to digest yesterday’s proceedings, I 
offer some comments and observations with regard to the CESG discussion 
yesterday on the directionality of space links and related conversation. 

1.      The apparent lack of progress/resolution of the issue leaves the 
CSS Area with a dilemma of how to proceed with publication polling for the 
FF-CSTS (Forward Frame) recommendation.  From all reports that I have from 
the CSTS working group, the book will be ready for publication very soon 
as prototyping has been satisfactorily completed. To the best of my 
recollection it was three years ago, the spring meetings of 2017, where a 
request was made to see if some sort of reference could be provided such 
that we could include it in the forward frame book. At this point I 
suspect the forward frame book will be ready for publication long before 
the issue is resolved -- in the CSS area we may have to figure out some 
sort of wording to work around the fact that there is no CCSDS standard 
that can be referenced -- this could be something to indicate that as per 
common usage in the real world FF-CSTS can use this for forwarding of AOS 
frames etc. 
2.      I believe the comments yesterday about AOS already being used in 
real world operations in the forward direction are correct. As such I find 
it concerning that CCSDS as a whole cannot muster the ability to document 
this as a proper use of the AOS standard. It is also troubling as, if it 
is correctly reported, this was already indicated in prior versions of 
documentation and changed circa 2004.
3.      We have seen this past week very real evidence of the ascendancy 
of commercial ventures with the launch of a privately developed rocket 
contracted to NASA for carrying astronauts to the ISS (which I believe 
uses AOS in the forward direction). I'm concerned that in this case, CCSDS 
seems to be unable to keep up with current developments on the world stage 
and that this may present a risk to long term CCSDS relevancy. 

The above is offered only as commentary and is not meant to impugn the 
integrity or good work of anybody that labors for the cause of CCSDS 
standardization. Rather I'm concerned that this issue, if not resolved 
sooner rather than later, will impact CCSDS as a whole and may serve to 
make CCSDS less viable in general, thereby exacerbating what I see as 
already an issue of succession planning toward the next generation of 
engineers who may have an interest in international standardization. 

These are only my comments – I do not speak for any other parties.  The 
comments are meant only for consideration by the CESG Chairs, with CESG 
copied for cognizance. 

Best regards,
-Erik

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/20200607/03d5fa0b/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 131.3unresolvedPoll.SLSforCMC.v0.3.pptx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 48781 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200607/03d5fa0b/attachment-0001.obj>