[CESG] CESG-P-2022-08-003 Approval to release CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—High Data Rate Wireless Proximity Network Communications (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

[CCSDS Secretariat]

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, 
Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—High Data 
Rate Wireless Proximity Network Communications 
(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:	Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de
Sent:	Thursday, September 15, 2022 2:54 AM
To:	thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; kevin.gifford at colorado.edu
Subject:	RE: CESG-P-2022-08-003 Approval to release CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, 
Spacecraft   Onboard Interface Services-High Data Rate Wireless   
Proximity Network Communications (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS  
Agency review

Categories:	Poll Condition Closure

Thank you Tom for clarification. I also agree with proceeding further with the agency review, so that this 
ambiguity can be discussed and solved at WG level without any additional delay.

Regards,

Tomaso

From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>  
Sent: Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 23:56 
To: 'Kevin K Gifford' <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Cc: Cola, Tomaso de <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> 
Subject: RE: CESG-P-2022-08-003 Approval to release CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface 
Services-High Data Rate Wireless Proximity Network Communications (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS 
Agency review

Kevin:

Concerning your proposed disposition of the poll condition, to change “M/O” to “C” for all occurrences:

A requirement that is conditional without stating under what conditions it is required, with 
implementation of the requirement being based on a "Y" or "N" indication in a support column, would 
properly be an optional requirement.

But I think we are dealing with confusion between a PICS Proforma Requirements List and a Profile 
Requirements List, the latter being something used to state partial support of a standard’s specifications. 
The three columns, Support, Protocol Status Value, and Profile Status Value do not belong in a PICS 
Proforma Requirements List and should be deleted, and all occurrences of “M/O” should be replaced 
with “O” for optional. Rational: the document is supposed to be a standard, not a profile. You could 
supply a blank Profile Requirements List, but not in lieu of the actual PICS Proforma Requirements List.

Since the WG may need to ruminate on all this, I propose leaving the annex as is for agency review (as 
other ADs who commented on the “M/O” notation proposed) and resolving it as a review item after the 
review. If Tomaso agrees, we can state that the poll condition is closed. (If the WG is meeting in 
Toulouse, I could possibly attend for the discussion.)

Tom



Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805

From: Kevin K Gifford [mailto:kevin.gifford at colorado.edu]  
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:35 PM 
To: CCSDS Secretariat 
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de; Kevin K Gifford 
Subject: Re: CESG-P-2022-08-003 Approval to release CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, Spacecraft Onboard 
Interface Services—High Data Rate Wireless Proximity Network Communications (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) 
for CCSDS Agency review

Dear Tomaso, Dear Thomas -  

Amended RID Resolution Proposal: To resolve the single RID on CCSDS-883.0-P-1.1 (Pink Sheet 
Review) the SOIS-WIR WG will provide updated Tables A2.1.7 and A3.1.6 and ensure PICS 
proforma compliance.

SOIS-WIR WG will provide the updated tables ASAP and certainly within the next week.

Please let me know if this is amenable.

Thanks.

Kevin


 
From: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 10:51 AM 
To: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> 
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>; Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Subject: Re: CESG-P-2022-08-003 Approval to release CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface 
Services—High Data Rate Wireless Proximity Network Communications (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for 
CCSDS Agency review 
 
Dear Tomaso, Dear Thomas - 

To resolve the single RID on CCSDS-883.0-P-1.1 (Pink Sheet Review) I propose the following:
-- In Table A2.1.7 Identification of Specification, any "M/O" designation (Table A2.1.7 Item 
numbers 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) shall be changed to "C" (Conditional) with implementation support of 
the conditional indicated as either "Y" or "N" in the Support Column of the PICS proforma table

Q1 (@Tomaso): Does this solution disposition your concern?

Q2 (@Thomas G.): I'm thinking it will be easiest for us both if you just make the 6 changes from 
"M/O" to "C" in CCSDS-883-1-P-1.1 Table A2.1.7.
-- Is this amenable to you?

Thanks!

Kevin
 
From: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 10:13 AM 
To: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> 
Subject: Re: CESG-P-2022-08-003 Approval to release CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface 
Services—High Data Rate Wireless Proximity Network Communications (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for 
CCSDS Agency review 
 
Kevin: 
 
Several ADs commented on the "M/O" notation in the PICS Requirements List; Tomasa de Cola 
voted to approve with conditions, but his comment does not indicate an action to resolve the 
condition. Please negotiate directly with Tomaso to clarify/dispose the condition and CC the 
Secretariat on all related correspondence. 
 
In fact, an "M/O" notation is not legal in a PICS Requirements List. If the requirement is 
conditional, one of the conditional notations (which include an explanation of the condition) 
should be used. If the "M/O" notation is a shorthand version of something like "mandatory to be 
included/optional to be used" (legal in a Profile Requirements List but not in a PICS 
Requirements List), then it should be changed uniformly to "M" for mandatory. 
 
Since I am optimistic that the condition will be disposed in a timely manner, I am going to start 
the CMC poll today so that the review can be started without delay (assuming you and Tomaso 
come to an understanding in the next two weeks). 
 
Tom 
 
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-08-003 Approval to release CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, 
Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—High Data Rate Wireless Proximity Network 
Communications (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review 
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 August 2022 and ending 13 September 2022: 
 
                Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Merri) 
Approve Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Barkley, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot) 
Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Cola) 
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: 
 
    Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  Not a condtion for proceeding to agency review, but 
a request that can perhaps be addressed during agency review:  the PICS Pro Format has a few 
table entries that have "M/O" notation which can be read as Mandotry or Optional?  Can some 
explanation be added as to what "M/O" means? This is on pages A-5 and A-6.  Taking a look at 
the current Blue book there is no explanation of "M/O" that I can find.  
    Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally):   Agree with Barkley & de Cola conditions 
 
    Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  PICS annex contain M/O (mandatory/optional) 
in the new entries as well as in one old entry. It is true that the review applies to the new text 
only, but I'wondering why an M/O should still stay. 
 
    Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):   Note: Erik's comment will be added to the 
agency review comments for resolution. 
 
 
Total Respondents:  6 
 
All Areas responded to this question. 
 
 
 
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions 
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been 
addressed 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *