[CESG] [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Tue Mar 16 08:03:18 UTC 2021
Peter,
just to be clear I never asked to revert from layer to stratus.
I simply remark that the straight replacement (e.g. a la WinWord) stratus
--> layer does create new issues as e.g. the identification on an Aperture
Layer.
Actually I found that the document could live taking away strata and just
deleting those parts that indeed refer mostly to functions (that is most
likely the best seller term in that document) are likely to solve the
issue. This is what I proposed in my comments to John.
Defining sub layers can be an artifact that may look as a solution but as
well can create new confusion if "invented" in a document without a real
relationship with other documents.
If the envisaged solution is to define an Aperture sub layer and a
Modulation sub layer within the Physical Layer, I do recommend consulting
the RFM WG on this.
That's all for my European evening
Best regards & stay healthy
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: "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Thomas
Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date: 15-03-21 19:31
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to
publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame
Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)
Hi Gippo,
I just got the details of this issue you raised forwarded from John. I
can forward the rather lengthy analysis that I sent back to him, which
mostly extracted definitions from the Basic Reference Model (known as the
ISO BRM) ISO/IEC 7498-1, the edition republished in 1996.
Here is a short summary of that analysis:
1. The BRM concerns itself with “terrestrial systems of terminals,
computers, and associated devices for transferring information among them
”.
2. The BRM defines and extensively uses the term “Layer”.
3. The BRM makes no mention of “strata” nor “stratum”.
4. Using that term stratum to rename what is already defined as a
layer in the ISO BRM is just plain confusing.
5. The BRM makes no mention of aperture or ground station but the
Physical Layer is defined as “The Physical Layer provides the mechanical,
electrical, functional and procedural means to activate, maintain, and
de-activate physical-connections for bit transmission between
data-link-entities. “
6. This is a perfectly serviceable definition of the functions that
an “aperture” provides for either RF or optical communications at the
Physical Layer.
7. We (CCSDS) do describe the roles of ground stations and terminals
and apertures, but we do not tend to explicitly define them. They are
used, but not formally defined, in the RF&M 401 document, and in the
SCCS-ARD and Nav standards.
8. The way that we use those terms, Earth Station or Aperture, for
either RF or optical comms, is entirely consistent with the ISO BRM
definition of “Physical Layer”.
9. Just as “modulation”, which is not defined in the ISO BRM, is
treated as a “sub-layer” of the Physical Layer, I think it entirely
appropriate to treat the “aperture” as a sub-layer of the Physical Layer.
So I agree with you. Calling the aperture an “aperture layer” is a
mis-statement. On the other hand, calling it a “sub-layer of the Physical
Layer” is entirely appropriate, and this fits both within the ISO BRM and
is consistent with the nearly identical definition we have adopted for the
modulation sub-layer of the Physical Layer.
Regards, Peter
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:35 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>,
Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish
CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service (
Blue Book, Issue 1)
Peter,
actually I received the "publication package" from Tom.
Actually your file is named differently from the one in that package, but
I am not going to investigate the difference also because I provided some
comment to Johh Pietras based on the file I got from Tom.
I provided the comments on a friendly basis making clear to John that
(according to rules) there is "no obligation to accept any of them."
My major issue is the straight replacement of strata with layers.
First this introduce an "Aperture Layer" I never heard before and then it
also introduces many consistency concerns with other document statements
that talk about functions.
The other findings are minor or even just additional information for the
book editor.
IMO, resubmitting this big document to CESG would not be according to
rules but it would be according to the spirit to “produce the most
useful, clear, and unambiguous standards”
I wish you all a nice week end.
Gian Paolo
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: "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Thomas
Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date: 11-03-21 22:04
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to
publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame
Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)
Dear Gippo,
Somehow it appears that you are more concerned with “follow the process to
the letter” than you are on “produce the most useful, clear, and
unambiguous standards”.
I did, by the way, say that I was guilty of missing this issue the first
time around:
“the CESG failed to catch it earlier. I point the finger at myself here,
since I had the opportunity to catch the issue earlier”
I also admit to being late with my inputs. The WG could have taken the
“stand on ceremony” and “follow the process to the letter” approach, or
just told me “too late”. Instead they looked at this request, apparently
realized that I was correct, and fixed it.
I’m attaching there updates here just so you all get to see what was, in
fact, changed. It’s not intended to be a secret. Some of the other
communications were sent to the CESG and the key one that initiated this
is copied below for easy reference.
For my part I am glad that this was resolved in a way that produced a
clear, unambiguous, standard that documents just what it is that the IOAG
SISG requested.
Best regards, Peter
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) [mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 7:49 PM
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970); Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int; Tom Gannett
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec
Subject: Late input from SEA on the CESG-P-2020-02-006 CSTS FF poll
Dear Erik, Holger, Tom, et al,
Please accept this late input from SEA on this poll. I took the time to
actually review the spec in some detail and it took rather longer than I
expected. I was hoping that this FF-CSTS spec would meet all of the
planned requirements for this forward frame service. Unless I somehow
overlooked some important features that are documented deep in the bowels
of this 218 page specification I am afraid that I have to conclude that it
has missed the mark.
The “mark” in my understanding, is that this spec was supposed to define
the list of features that follows below. These are drawn from the
original SISG Space Internetworking Strategy report that first defined the
features of this forward frame service intended to accommodate DTN (and
IP) traffic, from the SCCS-ARD/ADD where these features were documented in
the context of the rest of the CCSDS protocol stacks and Earth Space Link
Terminal (ESLT, otherwise known as a ground station plus its associated
control center elements), and the features that already existed in the
EF-CLTU Orange Book that was created because there was no other documented
service for handling the synchronous AOS frame protocol for forward links.
1. Ability to provide an “SLE-like” forward link service for
synchronous link protocols, initially AOS, but now to include USLP
2. Provide encoding in the ESLT for this forward link frame stream
3. Ability to accept input frame streams from more than one user
source
4. Ability to multiplex frame streams from all of the input
sources, including some that are not directly from FF-CSTS itself
5. Ability to keep a synchronous forward link filled, if necessary
by inserting fill frames in the ESLT
6. Ability to integrate the protocol PDUs from DTN, IP, CFDP, or
other data sources, from “agents” instantiated in the ESLT, to create
frames that encapsulate these PDUs, and to integrate these in the
multiplexed frame stream (see items 3 & 4)
As best I can tell this spec fails to accomplish items 5 and 6 at all, and
it appears to give only passing acknowledgement to items 2 or 4. These
are mentioned as being features that are needed somewhere in the ESLT, but
there is not a section of the document, nor even an informative annex, let
alone a normative one, that would suggest what was really intended nor how
to accomplish it. In my judgement this is a significant oversight and
renders this document inadequate to the task at hand which was to document
how these services were to be provisioned and integrated.
Unfortunately, from my point of view, instead of addressing these
absolutely required services the document as presented spends a lot of
“real estate” documenting how this new service can be made to handle TC
forward asynchronous frames. Since there is already a perfectly
serviceable SLE F-CLTU that provides this service this seems like an
unnecessary effort. The only conceivable rationale that occurs to me is
that this TC forward service is very much like that needed for USLP
variable length frame forward service. That said, I really have to
question whether it would have been better to just modify SLE F-CLTU to
accommodate USLP variable length frames instead of weighing this document
down with this added baggage.
It appears that in this document we got far fewer of the essential
features than were required and, at the same time, more features than were
really useful.
While I recognize that a large amount of work has been expended to get
this document to this point, in my estimation it falls far short of what
is really required. It does not provide all of the features called for in
the IOAG SISG, nor that were documented in the SCCS-ARD Magenta Book, nor
does it appear to provide all of the features in the F-CLTU Orange Book
which has for years been supporting major operational missions. It was
intended to provide services that could meet all of these requirements,
and it seems to have failed to do so.
Accordingly, I cannot support publishing this document in its current
form.
With respect, Peter Shames
From: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 1:34 PM
To: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com>
Cc: Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int"
<Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>, Wolfgang Hell <wo_._he at t-online.de>, Tim Pham
<timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Neutze, Robert L. (MSFC-EO60)[CSC - HOSC]"
<robert.l.neutze at nasa.gov>, "Clement.Leclerc at cnes.fr"
<Clement.Leclerc at cnes.fr>, "Liao, Jason C (US 333F)"
<jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Response to CSEG Review comments on the FF-CSTS
candidate Blue Book
Dear John,
Always a wonderful opening to a letter, right? After looking over, in
some detail, the proposed resolutions for the issues that I raised I am
pleased to be able to state that you have addressed my concerns. I
believe that the changes have made the various distinctions among the
different flavors of service provision clearer, and, more importantly from
my PoV, have made the visible the assumptions that were “baked in”, but
not expressed, in service production. This now provided visibility to the
multiplexing functions that are so essential to the proper functioning of
this service as a key part of the future CCSDS ESLT “plumbing”.
I consider my PID to poll CESG-P-2020-12-006 to be resolved and agree to
having the revised document published in its modified form.
I will note that some last minute massaging by Tom Gannett will likely be
required, there were at least a couple of spelling errors noted in
passing.
Thanks, Peter
From: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 1:31 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int"
<Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>, Wolfgang Hell <wo_._he at t-online.de>, Tim Pham
<timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Neutze, Robert L. (MSFC-EO60)[CSC - HOSC]"
<robert.l.neutze at nasa.gov>, "Clement.Leclerc at cnes.fr"
<Clement.Leclerc at cnes.fr>, "Liao, Jason C (US 333F)"
<jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Response to CSEG Review comments on the FF-CSTS
candidate Blue Book
Peter, it’s taken a few weeks, but the CSTSWG has completed our response
to your conditions and comments on the CSEG Review copy of the FF-CSTS
candidate Blue Book. Erik has also reviewed and concurs with the response.
Attached are (a) an updated draft FF-CSTS book, containing the changes to
the book that have resulted in response to your conditions/comments, and
(b) a document that contains point-by-point responses to the comments that
you made in your email of 16 January to Erik, Holger, and Tom and in your
marked-up copy of the CESG Approval version of the book.
Hopefully, between the changes that have been made and the explanations
provided for questions that you had, your conditions for approval have
been satisfied. Please contact me if you have any further questions or
comments.
Tom G. – I’m copying you on this to keep you in the loop on where this
book sits. Once the CSTSWG and Peter have come to agreement regarding
removal of his conditions, I’ll send to you the final updated copy (if
there any more changes), the final response/resolution document, and the
original artwork for the updated figures so that you can prepare the CMC
approval version.
Best regards,
John
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 3:26 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>,
Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish
CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service (
Blue Book, Issue 1)
Peter,
the updates have been visible to me only when - following the
announcement of conditions met - I asked them to Tom.
I do not know whether anybody else in CESG (apart from CSS AD and DAD, I
would guess) could see them.
As I read your mail I perceive that everybody else (i.e. WG, CSS, other
CESGers) is guilty but you.
However, never mind.
Clearly the rules only require to close condition and go ahead with next
poll without more review from CESG.
On the other hand the rules also require to vote during poll (and not
after polls) and - as CESG agreed - to provide formal PIDs (this was
discussed in order to give real visibility on conditions).
I am reporting what I see as an issue with "heavy" changes after "heavy"
Conditions.
I would be curios about knowing who in CESG has been able to fully
understand the requested changes and eventually to track the implemented
changes.
IMO, the mechanism of CESG conditions was thought to address changes with
"reasonable/limited scope".
IMO, when changes exceed a "reasonable/limited scope" the document should
return to CESG Poll (or even to Agency Review in some cases).
If nobody else can see this issue except me, then... peace and love.
Best regards
Gian Paolo
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>,
"cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date: 11-03-21 00:10
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to
publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame
Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)
Hi Gippo,
I’m guessing that these necessary updates were “visible” to you, and the
rest of the CESG, because you were able to state the magnitude of the
required changes. Perhaps you are asking that the CESG be given an
opportunity to re-review the changes in response to the PID. I cannot
tell because you did not address that issue. But the CESG did get to see
the changes.
In point of fact, the revisions do not make the document “heavily, nor
completely different” from the document that was reviewed. What the
changes do accomplish is to align the description of the service with the
functionality requested in the IOAG SISG report from years ago, which you,
yourself, were a co-author of. What was required were not changes to the
FF-CSTS service provisioning itself, but were clarifications to the
service production that were not otherwise documented anywhere aside from
the IOAG SISG report and the SCCS-ARD. In the absence of these
clarifications the functionality of the service, both provision (which is
the core focus of the service exposed to users) and production (which are
the functions that must be executed to deliver full functionality of frame
merging and DTN bundle agent and CFDP file agent integration) would be
inadequately documented. It would have been left to the users to guess
what production functionality was required or supported. A massive source
of ambiguity for a service that is to be the heart of DTN integration and
support in the future ESLTs.
What is wrong with this approach is that the WG failed to incorporate the
description of these critical production functions in the first place, and
that the CESG failed to catch it earlier. I point the finger at myself
here, since I had the opportunity to catch the issue earlier and did, in
fact, point this concern out a couple of years ago. But then, I am only
one of the six Area Directors. It appears that no one else, including
you, who were one of the authors of the IOAG SISG report that defined this
new service, managed to catch this issue until now.
So, just what exactly is the problem here?
Peter
From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gian Paolo
Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:35 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish
CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service (
Blue Book, Issue 1)
Dear All,
I see that there is a 24 pages document only to explain which
changes have been applied (to a 242 pages document) because of the (late)
conditions.
The document that will go to CMC - in a way invisible to CESGers - is now
heavily (if not completely) different from the one that was evaluated by
CESG.
Frankly speaking I think there is something very wrong in this approach.
Best regards
Gian Paolo
From: "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
To: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
Date: 07-03-21 16:48
Subject: Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS
922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue
Book, Issue 1)
Sent by: "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
Dear CESG Members,
Conditions for approval of CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross
Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service
(Blue Book, Issue 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 publication.
Thomas Gannett
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805 [attachment "Re EXTERNAL Response to CSEG Review comments
on the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book.txt" deleted by Gian Paolo
Calzolari/esoc/ESA] _______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg
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).[attachment
"922x3b0_CESG_Approval-PID_response_update-210207[1].doc" deleted by Gian
Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20210316/a898837f/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the CESG
mailing list