[CESG] [EXTERNAL] [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 12 May 2022

Thu Jun 2 01:09:22 UTC 2022

Dear Mario,

With regard to your two PIDs/Poll Conditions re CESG-P-2022-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 901.3-R-1, Functional Resource Model (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review (please see copied email below):

PID 1 re scope:  Reading the text copied in the PID  (in turn copied from the book for agency review) it states "... functionality needed to provide space
    communication and tracking services,..." and "... it applies to a cross support interface..."  I believe this is then already sufficiently scoped.   

The PID asks for clarification: "It should be clarified in the text that the FRs shall be limited to hw/sw that is immediately and directly related to communication and shall not be used for abstract representation of other devices onboard or on the ground, e.g. a Camera or a Gyro...."  I fail to see how the scope already indicating applicability to "communication and tracking services" and  that "it applies to a cross support interface…" requires clarification.    

PID 2:  I believe the PID as stated indicates a misunderstanding of what the FRM is and is not.  This PID states, in part, "…when it goes on-board even for the RF elements, the aspects of TM/TC and operations in general should be handled through MO M&C services rather than using FRM for monitored parameters, notifiable events, or any configuration of those devices."    The FRM does not in fact "handle" anything.  It does not state protocol, nor does it state service level behavior.  Rather, in essence, the FRM is an engineering facility -- ie., it is a tool to facilitate normative definition and thereby facilitate sound engineering reasoning.   As an engineering facility, the FRM could, for example, at the discretion of the MOIMS Area be utilized to provide normative definition for standardized parameters of the MO Parameter Service, but any such definitions would be as developed by the MOIMS Area, and not by the FRM. 

With regard to both PID 1 and PID 2 I will note that the current exploration as to the potential applicability of the FRM to Areas other than CSS was requested by the CESG Chair at the 2019 Fall meetings in Darmstadt, with the request being for the SOIS, SIS, and CSS Areas to look into MIBs vs FRM, etc.  I believe the Areas involved and the CESG in general have diligently worked on carrying out this action. I do not believe it to be the prerogative of any one area to essentially close off any exploration of applicability for a potentially useful tool for other areas.  As the CSS AD I cannot in good consciousness, add text that, from my perspective, essentially says to CESG "you are not allowed to utilize the FRM in the MOIMS MO domain".   I think any such decision in that regard would in fact require CESG consensus, especially so given that there are other areas of CCSDS with onboard spacecraft concerns (ie., SOIS, SIS). 

I have been in contact with the CSTS WG Chair on this matter and we agree that the FRM reflects current ESLT scoping properly.  

Best regards,
-Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of CCSDS Secretariat via CESG-All
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 14:31
To: cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 12 May 2022

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 901.3-R-1, Functional Resource Model (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 April 2022 and ending 12 May 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  2 (50%) (Barkley, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions:  2 (50%) (Merri, Aguilar Sanchez) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions):

1) Section 1.3 "Scope" states that the scope is limited to IOAG service cat 1 and 2.
Then Section 2.2.1 "FUNCTIONAL RESOURCES AS ABSTRACTIONS OF REAL RESOURCES" reads:
"FRs are abstract representations of the functionality needed to provide space communication and tracking services, defined at a level of granularity sufficient to specify the configuration parameters, monitored parameters, and notifiable events associated with that functionality.
FRs exist to represent such information as it applies to a cross support interface. If a processing function does not have unique monitored parameters, notifiable events, or any configuration parameters that need to be set (possibly through configuration profiles), queried, or reconfigured (via real-time control directives), then it does not have an FR to represent it. It should be noted that only one of these facets needs to be present in order for a function to need to be represented by an FR."

It should be clarified in the text that the FRs shall be limited to hw/sw that is immediately and directly related to communication and shall not be used for abstract representation of other devices onboard or on the ground, e.g. a Camera or a Gyro.... for such devices MO services should be the prime choice for abstract representation of the interface. This is consistent with the so called "London agreement".

2) It should be also clarified in the text (Section 1.3 Scope?) that, when it goes on-board even for the RF elements, the aspects of TM/TC and operations in general should be handled through MO M&C services rather than using FRM for monitored parameters, notifiable events, or any configuration of those devices. This is consistent with CCSDS 371.0-G-1 APPLICATION AND SUPPORT LAYER ARCHITECTURE

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with Conditions):

Positively impressed with the organisation, depth and detail of this draft standard. Will review it carefully during Agency Review. Nevertheless, a couple of minor editorials (will not use the PID form):

-Ref [6]:  There is a very recent issue 4  (April 2022);

- Page 2-5, paragraph b): the terms 'channel bits' shall be replaced by 'symbols'; on the next sentence the term 'bits' shall be replaced by 'symbols';

- Page 2-5, paragraph c): the term 'bits' shall be replaced by 'symbols'.
     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve
Unconditionally):  Document is really for agency review. May submit comments during agency review process.

Total Respondents:  4

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SEA
     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate 
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-04-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 141.10-O-1, Optical High Data Rate (HDR) Communication1550 NM (Orange Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 April 2022 and ending 12 May 2022:

                 Abstain:  2 (33.33%) (Merri, Duhaze) Approve Unconditionally:  3 (50%) (Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Barkley) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):

I was unable to confirm good information re licensing of DVB-S2.  The document indicates "S2 Licensing" with a US address and email address for obtaining a license.  Googling for S2 licensing turns up a press release from 2008.  There appears to be no DNS records for "S2licensing.com".  Googling the phone number listed in the document indicates it to be the office of "Bayside Law" with a different street address than listed in the document.  Further searching tends to indicate licensing being done via DTVG licensing (see https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programs/digital-video-display-technology/dvb-s2/patent-owners__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!bwJmP8QrGAVtiQ27yxO4QDEEU4Uo7GbSs_KC-ksGCQu0_NnIwvuLjqrmrnW-OhxBYlL_gz8$ ) among others.

My request is that the information be checked -- my concern is that the CCSDS document, albeit experimintal, may not be providing correct information should an organization choose to implement this standard.

Total Respondents:  6

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SEA
     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate 
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-04-003 Approval to release CCSDS 504.0-P-1.1, Attitude Data Messages (, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 April 2022 and ending 12 May 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Barkley, Merri, Duhaze, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Aguilar Sanchez) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve 
Unconditionally):   Minor commentary/question 
only -- the document looks good, quite ready for agency review.
I am curious if the Abstract Event Defintion (CCSDS 902.13-M-1) was considered for this version of the document.
     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with
Conditions):  MInor editorial suggestion. 
Unfortunately, the upload of the corresponding PID file does not work for this reviewer. Hence, I am pasting the content of the PID file hereafter.

        CESG POLL ITEM DISPOSITION (PID) INITIATION FORM

AREA PID NUMBER:	SLS
SUBMITTING AREA: 	SLS
------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER'S NAME: 	I. AGUILAR SANCHEZ
E-MAIL ADDRESS:    	ignacio.aguilar.sanchez at esa.int
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:   CCSDS 504.0-P-1.0
DOCUMENT NAME:     Attitude Data Messages
DATE ISSUED:       April 2022
PAGE NUMBER:   D-1                PARAGRAPH NUMBER:  N/A
PID SHORT TITLE:   KVN acronym definition
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:  (Use From: "..." To "..." format)

ANNEX D

From:

KVN Keyword = Value Notation

To:

KVN 'Keyword = Value' Notation

------------------------------------------------------------------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
     Technical Fact ___    Recommended ___    Editorial _X_
NOTES:
TECHNICAL FACT:  Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not corrected.  (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)
RECOMMENDED:  Change of a nature that would, if incorporated, produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.
EDITORIAL:  Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(This type of change will be made without feedback to submitter.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

The acronym is described in 6.7.1 as per proposed change ('Keyword = Value' Notation).
It seems the most accurate description found in the document.
The Publications Manual (5.3.3.6) requires agreement with the definition found in text.
However, it is unclear to this reviewer if such description is compatible with the Publications Manual.
Can the character ' be included in an acronym definition?
If possible, would suggest to change.

------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSITION:

Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SEA
     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate 
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

_______________________________________________
CESG-All mailing list
CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!bwJmP8QrGAVtiQ27yxO4QDEEU4Uo7GbSs_KC-ksGCQu0_NnIwvuLjqrmrnW-OhxBbuZV91o$ 