[Sea-time] [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated Time BoF charter, please review and provide feedback by 10 Apr 2019

Wed Apr 10 14:49:54 UTC 2019

Dear Sinda,

The process we use in CCSDS is consensus.  That means to seek the best possible outcome that all can agree upon.  It does not mean that someone can declare, unilaterally, that they do not like a choice.  The role for anyone with a dissenting opinion is to attempt to convince the rest of the WG that their position is the better one.  All of this is described in the CCSDS Organization and Procedures document, CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, in Annex G.

If you will recall we did discuss every one of the points that Enrico raised.  You were present for that discussion and you did not raise these issues except in that written submission.  The rest of the BoF, after considering those proposed changes, decided that only one of them was a valuable addition and it was included.  Aside from that, it appears that the phrase that Enrico is most concerned about is this highlighted one:

A multitude of time transfer, correlation, and synchronization methods will be described, including those involving ranging methods (telemetry ranging, PN ranging, and GMSK+PN ranging), one way data delay coupled with trajectory data, two-way range signaling similar to that used by the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS)), the use of local area time zones (e.g., rovers and orbiters around Mars), and methods using or not using explicit time code format representations in the signaling.

The BoF has discussed this numerous times and they collectively believe that we need to evaluate all of these methods for dealing with time and time transfer.  We do not understand what the objections is.  This BoF is not going to define any of these methods, that is work to be done in other WGs.  What we will do is to describe how they can be used in serving the needs for time transfer, correlation, and synchronization.

I invite Enrico to provide an explanation for why he finds this objectionable.  Just saying “No”, however loudly, is not really sufficient.  In fact, I will put him on the agenda first, at 1045 AM on Monday, so we can put this matter behind us.

Best regards, Peter

From: "Sinda Mejri (external)" <Sinda.Mejri at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 6:04 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, SEA-TIME <sea-time-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: "sea-time at mailman.ccsds.org" <sea-time at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sea-time] Updated Time BoF charter, please review and provide feedback by 10 Apr 2019

Dear Peter,

Given the fact that the current version of the Charter does not reflect the comments of ESA experts, ESA will oppose to the submission of the current version for CESG approval.

As mentioned in previous emails exchange, my colleague Enrico Vassallo, will be attending the Spring meeting and he is willing to discuss the issues in a face-to-face and explain in more details ESA comments.

Meanwhile here the ESA proposal for the Charter.

Best regards,

Sinda Mejri

----------------------------------------------------
ESA - European Space Agency
(CS GmbH)

Dr Sinda Mejri
Optical and F&T expert
OPS-GSO
Directorate of Operations

ESOC
Robert-Bosch-str. 5
64293, Darmstadt, Germany
sinda.mejri at esa.int<mailto:sinda.mejri at esa.int>

From:        "Shames, Peter M \(312B\) via SEA-TIME" <sea-time at mailman.ccsds.org>
To:        "Shames, Peter M (312B) via SEA-TIME" <sea-time at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:        06/04/2019 21:36
Subject:        [Sea-time] Updated Time BoF charter, please review and provide feedback by 10 Apr 2019
Sent by:        "SEA-TIME" <sea-time-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
________________________________

Dear SEA Time BoF,

Attached is what I think is a suitable version of a draft charter that we can send to the CESG and CMC for approval.  It includes the updates agreed to in the last telecon, some additional definitions drawn from the 4 March set, and a new definition for “clock-ensemble” that I created.  I could not find a specific definition of this anywhere, so I crafted this based on those discussions I could find that hinted at a definition.  Track changes was left on so you could see what changed.

It also includes a proper reference to the COO paper that Lee Pitts provided and some suggested mods he provided to the existing definitions for clarity in our context.

Please review all of these and provide feedback no later than close of business (C0B), Wednesday, 10 April 2019.  I want to submit this before the end of next week.

Thanks, Peter

 [attachment "Time_WG_Charter-DRAFT-2019-04-05.docx" deleted by Sinda Mejri/esoc/ESA]

_______________________________________________
SEA-TIME mailing list
SEA-TIME at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sea-time

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/sea-time/attachments/20190410/6e226ac2/attachment-0001.html>