[CESG] CESG-P-2021-02-005 Approval to release CCSDS 732.1-P-1.1, Unified Space Data Link Protocol (Proposed Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

[CCSDS Secretariat]

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 732.1-P-1.1, Unified Space Data Link 
Protocol (Proposed 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:	Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent:	Wednesday, February 17, 2021 2:50 PM
To:	Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Cc:	Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr; Kazz, Greg J (US 312B); Matt Cosby; Tom Gannett
Subject:	Re: [EXTERNAL] SEA Conditions on 732.1-B USLP

Follow Up Flag:	Follow up
Flag Status:	Flagged

Categories:	Poll Condition Closure

Hi Gippo,

I am OK with the sec 4.1.1 changes as long as the abbreviations for TFDF etc are stated somewhere near 
to where these longer names are defined.    It is common practice in CCSDS to state the full name, 
followed by the abbreviation on first use, and then to use the abbreviation thereafter.

The note you added seem clesr to me.  If the rest of the guys are Ok with it, then I am as well.

Thanks, Peter


From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> 
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 11:05 AM 
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Cc: Gilles Moury <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, Greg Kazz <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, Matt Cosby 
<matt.cosby at goonhilly.org>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] SEA Conditions on 732.1-B USLP

Thank you,  Peter.  
 
Just to be clear the improved readability concerns the change in Section 4.1.1 from the actual text  
a) Transfer Frame Primary Header (4 to 14 octets);  
b) Transfer Frame Insert Zone (integral number of octets);  
c) TFDF (integral number of octets);  
d) OCF (4 octets); and  
e) FECF (2 or 4 octets).  
TO  
a) Transfer Frame Primary Header (4 to 14 octets, mandatory);  
b) Transfer Frame Insert Zone (integral number of octets, optional);  
c) Transfer Frame Data Field (integral number of octets, mandatory);  
d) Operational Control Field (4 octets, optional); and  
e) Frame Error Control Field (2 or 4 octets, optional).  
The improved readability is achieved using the extended definition instead of the acronym.  
 
For the NOTE to 4.1.1 we are not "leaving a mandatory field out of a list of mandatory items".  
In the version in force the NOTE included the sentence:  
Conditions  for  the  presence  of  the  Insert  Zone,  TFDF,  OCF,  and  FECF  are  further discussed in 
section 4 below.  
While Insert  Zone,  OCF,  and  FECF are optional felds, the TFDF is not.  
Therefore there are conditions for the presence of Insert  Zone,  OCF,  and  FECF while there are no 
conditions for the presence of TFDF (is MUST be there).  
A possible improvement could then be something as e.g.  
While the Transfer Frame Primary Header and the TFDF are always present, 
conditions  for  the  presence  of  the  Insert  Zone, OCF,  and  FECF  are  further discussed in section 4 
below.  
However this is just my personal brainstorming not discussed with the other SLS/SLP guys.  
 
Best regards  
 
Gippo  
 
 
 
From:        "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>  
To:        "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>  
Cc:        "Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, "Kazz, Greg J (US 312B)" <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
"Matt Cosby" <matt.cosby at goonhilly.org>, "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>  
Date:        17-02-21 18:55  
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] SEA Conditions on 732.1-B USLP 
 

Hi Gippo,
 
Thanks for the feedback.  I am ok with the proposed changes.  
 
That said, I am puzzled as to why leaving a definition that is used in the text out of a list of 
definitions, and leaving a mandatory field out of a list of mandatory items “improves 
readability”.  In my mind it introduces ambiguity, and I believe that reinforcing these conditions 
through appropriate repetition is a good thing.
 
If you all really feel strongly that this is not the case then remove them, but I think it is a mistake.
 
Peter
 
 
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> 
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 2:04 AM 
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Cc: Gilles Moury <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, Greg Kazz <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, Matt Cosby 
<matt.cosby at goonhilly.org>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] SEA Conditions on 732.1-B USLP
 
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)          
There are a few issues, as identified in sec 2.1.2.4, sec 4.1.1, and sec 4.1.2.1 in the attached, that need 
to be remedied.  Otherise the changes are an improvement in clarity of the document, in particular 
handling of truncated frames.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Following changes are proposed
a.        Section 2.1.2.4: 
        FROM: In Proximity-1 ……..
        TO: COP-P
b.        Section 4.1.1: 
        The abbreviations are removed to improve readability. 
c.        Section 4.1.1 NOTE: 
                TFDF is removed from the list because the field is mandatory and therefore there are no 
conditions for its presence. 
d.        Sec. 4.1.2.1.1 – 
        FROM: non-truncated (see figure D-2) …..
        TO: non-truncated (see figure 4-1)
e.        Sec. 4.1.10.1 – missing period at end of sentence…
                make a full stop.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 
I hope this explanation will be sufficient to remove your condition and proceed to Agency Review.  
 
Best 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).