[CESG] [EXTERNAL] Re: Requesting SSG "consensus": QSCID Question

Shames, Peter M (US 312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue Jun 15 11:56:22 UTC 2021

Hi Gippo,

I do understand what you are proposing,  but the situation has gotten a lot more complicated than I think you may be aware.  Some agencies, from the  beginning, chose to  have their SCID assignments hidden, so what is  really an allocated number appears empty.  Other agencies are choosing to do that now, or to not even register their SCIDs even though they are using CCSDS protocols.

As a result of this, instead of being able to use a straightforward algorithm to search for and assign SCIDs the SANA staff have to waste their time going on “Easter Egg Hunts”.  This is really inefficient and I fail to understand why it is even of value.

Perhaps I am not understanding something, but what is the value in picking a specific SCID?  Do agencies really have hardware and software that is “wired” to one SCID number that cannot be changed?

Thanks, Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:03 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca>, "SANA Steering Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] Requesting SSG "consensus": QSCID Question

        I concur with Marc analysis and with your considerations but I wonder whether a softer approach could be used.
I mean that - since the SCID values are all public at https://sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraftid/<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraftid/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!a8DH8ZwEglT8_6NMWb8wINgI3d3v6aPLrXo8dkcP7ZbUOP8GJY9LxVuIesuMuP60fjxZosO0$> - an Agency has all the means to check if a value is free or assigned.  (Some remarks below)
Therefore, one chance could be leaving the “pick your own number” option but requiring that the research for availability be performed and included in the request by the requester,

This could be a way to still be friendly to requester but avoiding a "interpretable" task to NASA.

Last, but not least I think CMC shall be polled on this question as the task is mainly on Agency Delegates or persons acting on behalf of their Agency Delegate.

My cent,,,


PS with respect to the specific request I first looked for decimal 68 = Hex 44 and I find it assigned to NILESAT-2 for both TM and TC. Then I also saw that 116 = Hex 74 is assigned to MSL98-Flight and 229 = E5 Hex is assigned to STELLATsim.
This is just to say that the requester would have been able to know that his request  “pick your own number”  was a mission impossible.
In case those values were free, he could have stated this in his analysis justifying the ticked “pick your own number” option.

From:        "Shames, Peter M\(US 312B\) via CESG" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
To:        "SANA Steering Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc:        "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca>, "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:        15-06-21 01:52
Subject:        [CESG] Requesting SSG "consensus": QSCID Question
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>

Hi Marc,

I completely sympathize with your situation.  I would agree that these kinds of requests are really pretty unreasonable since the QSCID ought to be a simple ID in a table in any reasonably designed software system.

I am also concerned, when they say “TLM and TC” that they are thinking “old school SCID” and not necessarily realizing that there are separate QSCIDs for different protocols.  Do they really mean TLM, i.e. TM protocol, and not AOS?

Unless someone on the SSG strongly objects I am going to suggest that we remove the “pick your own number” option from the SANA SCID website and tell them “You get one of the available numbers, as assigned by our algorithm.”

In accordance with CCSDS Consensus processes "Can anyone not live with this choice? “

Thanks, Peter

From: SSG <ssg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca>
Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 at 2:07 PM
To: "SANA Steering Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SSG] Fwd: QSCID Question


 We have work hard to fulfill those in the past., but with all the multiple overlaps over multiple bands, these kind of requests for «specific assignments » are becoming complicated to fulfill, are time consuming and potentially error prone.  We would like at some point that we have the right to just say: « sorry, we can’t fulfill specific assignments ».  We would like to have guidance from the SSG about these.


Début du message transféré :

De: "'Blalock, John R. (GSFC-459.0)[PERATON, INC]' via Engineering" <eng at viagenie.ca<mailto:eng at viagenie.ca>>

Objet: QSCID Question

Date: 14 juin 2021 à 10:29:04 HAE

À: SANA <info at sanaregistry.org<mailto:info at sanaregistry.org>>

Cc: "Zaki, Bashaer E (GSFC-450.0)[Internet Consulting Services, LLC]" <bashaer.e.zaki at nasa.gov<mailto:bashaer.e.zaki at nasa.gov>>

Répondre à: "Blalock, John R. (GSFC-459.0)[PERATON, INC]" <john.r.blalock at nasa.gov<mailto:john.r.blalock at nasa.gov>>


One of our missions would like to know if some V1 QSCIDs are available for TLM and TC in the X-band to match their other SCIDs. Are any of the QSCIDs below available for us to request? (all in decimal)

  *   116
  *   229
  *   068


John Blalock Jr.

CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org

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/20210615/0ba7e703/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the CESG mailing list