[CESG] CESG-P-2021-02-003 Approval to release CCSDS 232.0-P-3.1, TC Space Data Link Protocol (Proposed Pink Sheets, Issue 3.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Sat Feb 20 16:18:53 UTC 2021

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 232.0-P-3.1, TC Space Data Link 
Protocol (Proposed Pink Sheets, Issue 3.1) 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:	Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent:	Wednesday, February 17, 2021 12:55 PM
To:	Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Cc:	Tom Gannett; Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr; Kazz, Greg J (US 312B); Matt Cosby
Subject:	Re: [EXTERNAL] SEA Conditions on 232.0-B TC SDLP

Follow Up Flag:	Follow up
Flag Status:	Flagged

Categories:	Poll Condition Closure

Concur.

Thanks, Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> 
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 1:55 AM 
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, Gilles Moury <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, Greg 
Kazz <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, Matt Cosby <matt.cosby at goonhilly.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] SEA Conditions on 232.0-B TC SDLP

Dear Peter,  
        after SLS coordination with the SLP WG chairs  you find here below the reply to your conditions.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
SEA AD        Peter Shames        APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be 
satisfied)          
I am a little concerned that the removal of the "two ports per SAP" language that first appears in sec 
2.2.2.1, and then elsewhere in the doc, may present a "backward compatibility" issue for implementors of 
the current standard.  Is there any guarantee that this will not be n issue?  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 port PID: during WG discussion no agency representative has responded back with an 
implementation problem due to the removal of the term ports from 232.0 (TC).  
Here we see no action needed.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

I hope this explanation will be sufficient to remove your condition and proceed to Agency Review.  

Best regards  

Gian Paolo  

----- Forwarded by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA on 17-02-21 10:42 -----  

From:        "Kazz, Greg J (US 312B)" <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>  
To:        "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>  
Cc:        "Matthew Cosby" <matthew.cosby at goonhilly.org>, "Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>  
Date:        16-02-21 01:15  
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Conditions on 232.0-B (with Poll still open) 

G.P.,

1.        Concerning Xiongwen Hes PID: Same response. CCSDS examined the problem of 
adding a protocol ID field directly to the transfer frame header of AOS frame. However, there 
were insufficient available bits. Moreover, CCSDS determined that the best place to assign the 
protocol ID was in the Encapsulation Packet within the Encapsulation Packet protocol.

2.        Concerning Peter Shames port PID: no agency has responded back with an 
implementation problem due to the removal of the term ports from 232.0 (TC). Here I see no 
action needed. 

Best regards,
Greg

From: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> 
Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 at 10:58 AM 
To: "Kazz, Greg J (US 312B)" <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Cc: Matthew Cosby <matthew.cosby at goonhilly.org>, "Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr" 
<Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Conditions on 232.0-B (with Poll still open)

Greg,  
       looking at the CESG Poll I found there are two votes with conditions.  

SEA AD        Peter Shames        APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be 
satisfied)          
I am a little concerned that the removal of the "two ports per SAP" language that first appears in sec 
2.2.2.1, and then elsewhere in the doc, may present a "backward compatibility" issue for implementors of 
the current standard.  Is there any guarantee that this will not be n issue?  
SOIS DAD        Xiongwen He        APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be 
satisfied)          
It is strongly recommended that there is a protocol id in the transfer frame header which can be used to 
determine the upper layer protocol such as IP protocol without using Encapulation Protcol and IPoC.  

Can you please draft a reply to  Peter condition after what we discussed in the last days?  

For the condition by SOIS DAD, It is valid what I stated  for 132.0-B  

Regards  

Gian Paolo 
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).