[Css-csts] Fw: Merging of FRs dealing with variable length frames

[Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int]

Dear CSTS WG,
Please have a look at Wolfgang's email below. Feedback is appreciated!

Regards,
Holger

Holger Dreihahn
European Spacecraft Operations Centre | European Space Agency | S-431
+49 6151 90 2233 | http://www.esa.int/esoc
----- Forwarded by Holger Dreihahn/esoc/ESA on 03/07/2019 14:09 -----

From:   "Wolfgang Hell" <wo_._he at t-online.de>
To:     "Holger Dreihahn" <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>
Cc:     "John Pietras" <john.pietras at gst.com>
Date:   02/07/2019 14:49
Subject:        Merging of FRs dealing with variable length frames



Hi Holger,
can you please forward this material to the CSTS-WG? I'm copying John 
directly, because I suspect that he may have some more or less immediate 
comments while the other WG members presumably will need more time to 
digest this input (as for John's input for the fixed length frames). Any 
early feedback WG members might have will of course be helpful.
My assumption is that variable length frames will be used on the forward 
link only and therefore we do not need to investigate which parameters are 
required for the return link.
The only Sync and Coding sublayer that may be used in combination with 
variable length USLP frames are CCSDS 231.0-B-3 and CCSDS 211.0-B-5, where 
the latter addresses the proximity link. My understanding is that the FR 
specifications deal only with the Forward Link as emitted by an ESLT, but 
not with inter-spacecraft communications. Therefore only CCSDS 231.0-B-3 
needs to be taken into account in the FR specification context. That means 
that the Sync and Coding layer is the same for both USLP and TC frames and 
no merging of separate FR types is needed in that respect. For the sake of 
completeness the attached spreadsheet comparing the USLP and TC cases 
presents also the managed parameters of the sync and coding sublayer, 
i.e., of CCSDS 231.0-B-3.If deemed useful, I can add the VOP-1 managed 
parameters to the next issue of the spreadsheet. Again, these parameters 
are common for variable length USLP and for TC frames.
I have applied the following color coding in the spreadsheet: Those 
parameters that are identical or reasonably similar so that they can be 
used both to monitor and, if applicable, control USLP and TC frame 
handling have a green background. Those parameters that apply only to one 
frame type have a blue background. A red background indicates that I see a 
problem with merging USLP and TC or where I have a problem with the 
specification of the managed parameters ar generated by the space link 
folks.
As the next steps I plan to crosscheck my findings and suggestions against 
the material generated by John and to suggest an initial mapping of the 
parameters to FR types. Hopefully we can reach some related conclusions on 
July 9 such that we have a reasonably stable starting point for reworking 
some of the FR type specifications.
Best regards,
Wolfgang

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/css-csts/attachments/20190703/23bf3b7f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: USLP vs TC managed parameters.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 18033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20190703/23bf3b7f/attachment-0001.xlsx>