[Sis-dtn] RE: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)

Tue Nov 25 13:14:16 UTC 2014

Thank you, Keith.

A few more considerations here below.

For (non normative) section 2.1 I do concur to  leave it to the mission 
designer to decide exactly what CFDP runs over (BP, Encapsulation, ?)
So, after a further thought (due to your comment :o) it may be the best is 
to reword the paragraph to something like the (improvable) text below.
CFDP supports the following classes. 
?       Class 1?Unreliable CFDP Transfer;
?       Class 2?Reliable CFDP Transfer;
Each of the classes can be supported over the DTN Bundle Protocol 
(reference [19]).
Class 1 is best used  over reliable DTN "UT layer" stack while Class 2 can 
be used also  over unreliable DTN "UT layer" stack.
Morevore, both classes can also be operated over the Encapsulation Service 
(reference [722.1-M-1]).

For Clause 4.2.2.2.2 I wait for a consolidated proposal. However keep in 
mind that also other data link protocols offer VCA service.

For Clause 4.3.5 , I always thought that CFDP directly over LTP was not 
allowed.
If this is not the case, this should be reflected first in the relevant 
documents (e.g. CFDP section 3.4 SERVICES REQUIRED OF THE UNDERLYING 
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM?).
Even if the text is in the "e.g." part, we shall not extend standards by 
making comments in other books. So I definitively agree in making a NOTE 
(I guess that avoiding  "e.g." in normative should be a good practice 
though I cannot declare myself innocent in this respect).

Regards

Gian Paolo

From:   "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org>
To:     "osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de" <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>, 
"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, 
Cc:     "sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
"sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   25/11/2014 13:39
Subject:        RE: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice 
and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for 
Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)

I?m pulling in the MIA and DTN lists here.

Ø My responses to some of Gian Paolo?s comments inline below.

                        --keith

From: osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de [mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 5:36 AM
To: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int; Scott, Keith L.
Cc: tomg at aiaa.org
Subject: AW: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and 
Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency 
Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)

Hi Gian Paolo,
Thank you very much for your inputs. The DTN part was written by the DTN 
group, but I will check it with them.
Thanks also for all  the others recommendations, I will fix/check all of 
them.
Best Regards
Osvaldo

Von: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int [mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int] 
Gesendet: Montag, 24. November 2014 17:30
An: Scott, Keith L.; Peinado, Osvaldo Luis
Cc: Tom Gannett
Betreff: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio 
Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review 
(SIS-R-2014-11-003)

Keith, Osvaldo 
        here below a few preliminary quick comments. 
You may want to consider them before CESG poll starts. 
Regards 

Gian Paolo 

In section 2.1 I would reword this sentence from: 
CFDP supports two classes. Each of the classes can be supported over the 
DTN Bundle Protocol (reference [19]) and DTN Licklider Transport Protocol 
(LTP) (reference [18]). 
To e.g.: 
CFDP supports two classes. Each of the classes can be supported over the 
DTN Bundle Protocol (reference [19]). DTN may eventually operate over the 
Licklider Transport Protocol (LTP) (reference [18]). 

Ø I think the question here is how we think voice might be layered 
(specifically, if we think voice might run DIRECTLY over LTP or not). From 
the fact that CFDP seems to be the important bit here, we might say 
something like:

§  CFDP supports the following classes, both of which can be supported by 
the DTN Bundle Protocol (reference [19]).

Ø And leave it to the mission designer to decide exactly what CFDP runs 
over (BP, Encapsulation, ?)

Is the terminology <DTN Bundle Protocol >, <DTN Licklider Transport 
Protocol> correct? 

Ø I hadn?t really thought about it too much, but I think this terminology 
is pretty good (though the reference to LTP was removed in my suggested 
text above).  DTN is the label for ?the stack? and Bundle Protocol 
identifies the particular protocol.  We could say something like ?Bundle 
Protocol for CCSDS? (the name of the BP for CCSDS Book) but I think the 
context, coupled with the reference, make it clear what we?re talking 
about.

Clause 4.2.2.2.2 Advanced Orbiting Systems (AOS) Virtual Channel Access 
(VCA), AOS [24]   Bitstream, and AOS [24]  Insert services should be used 
to transmit voice and audio data. 
I think that this clause should be reworded to be clearer to e.g. 
The following services of AOS [24] should be used to transmit voice and 
audio data: Virtual Channell Access (VCA), Bitstream, and Insert. 
Ø I might have said something like
o   Voice and audio data should be transferred using (one or more of ???) 
the following services: Advanced Orbiting Systems (AOS, [24]) Virtual 
Channel Access (VCA), AOS Bitstream Service, and AOS Insert.
o   Not sure about ?using one of the following? vs. ?using the following? 
? if we?re thinking these types of transmissions are typically single-hop 
then ?one of?? will work.  If a single voice transmission might use 
multiple transmission mechanisms then ?using the following? (or using one 
or more of the following) is probably better.

Note also that the VCA Service is also offered by Telemetry (CCSDS 
132.0-B) and Telecommand (CCSDS 232.0-B), therefore a user willing to use 
VCA should not be limited to AOS. 

Clause 4.3.5  Files may be transmitted by any general file transmission 
protocol, e.g., via CFDP Class 1 or Class 2 (reference [17]), over CCSDS 
links or over DTN protocol (references [18] and [19]). 
I think here reference 18 should be removed as CFDP would never interface 
LTP directly. 
Ø Why not?  Once could do CFDP unreliable over LTP Red, for example, in 
order to write a very small and simple (if non-class-1-supporting) CFDP 
implementation.  I don?t feel too strongly about this one way or the 
other, especially since this text is in the ?example? clause of the 
sentence and is therefore (the way I would read the document) not 
normative.  It might be better even to separate the example into a NOTE 
(NOTE: File transfer may for example use CFDP ?.)  We also don?t have a 
CFDP over LTP UT layer spec.

Clause 4.5.5  Frequencies and channelization: If a direct space link to 
spacecraft is available or if the MCC communicates using a space link to 
other MCC, the CCSDS standard frequency (reference [20][21][22]) should be 
used. 
The 3 references mentioned there are the 3 books for Proximity-1. Only 
[20] addresses the physical layer for "proximity space-to-space links". 
Since MCC is mentioned I guess that Proximity-1 is not the only candidate. 

Please clarify which scenarios are really addressed by this clause and 
coordinate with Enrico Vassalo (SLS-RFM chair) for the applicable 
standards. 
Moreover, is it correct to address frequencies in normative clause without 
identifying the complete stack from the voice/audio application down to 
the physical layer? 
Note that if you want to consider the complete stack there are at least 
Encapsulation Service, TM, TC, AOS to be cited. 

In 5.1 the sentence <In cases involving landers, rovers, orbiting 
constellations, and orbiting relays, proximity links should be considered 
(references [20], [21], [22].) > is correct but how is this visible to the 
voice/audio application that is recommended to run over IPoC, DTN or File 
Xfer? Can the voice/audio application be really aware of the details of 
the layers immediately below those of the expected services (i.e. IPoC, 
DTN, CFDP, etc.)? 

From:        "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org> 
To:        "Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org" <Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
>, "Thomas        Gannett" <tomg at aiaa.org>, 
Cc:        "sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>, "CCSDS 
Engineering        Steering Group - CESG Exec \(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org\)" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Osvaldo Peinado \(osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de\)" <
osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de> 
Date:        24/11/2014 14:54 
Subject:        [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio 
Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review 
(SIS-R-2014-11-003) 
Sent by:        cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org 

CCSDS Secretariat, 

The SIS Area, on the recommendation of the Voice and Audio Communications 
Working Group, resolves (via SIS resolution SIS-R-2014-11-003) to submit 
the attached Red Book for document processing and CESG polling to release 
the document for agency review. 

I believe that Cynthia Sachs-Bustos should have the sources for the 
drawing in the book.  If not then we can provide them. 

                        Very respectfully, 

                        --keith 

Dr. Keith Scott                                Office: +1.703.983.6547 
Chief Engineer, J86A                         Fax:      +1.703.983.7142 
Communications Network Engineering & Analysis Email: kscott at mitre.org 
The MITRE Corporation                   M/S H300 
7515 Colshire Drive 
McLean, VA 22102 

Area Director, CCSDS Space Internetworking Services 

MITRE self-signs its own certificates.  Information about the MITRE PKI 
Certificate Chain is available from http://www.mitre.org/tech/mii/pki/ 

From: Keith Scott [mailto:keithlscott at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:44 PM
To: Scott, Keith L.
Subject: Fwd: Voice and audio communication book for CESG review 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>
Date: Nov 19, 2014 5:29 AM
Subject: Voice and audio communication book for CESG review
To: <tomg at aiaa.org>
Cc: <aid at mcc.rsa.ru>, <keithlscott at gmail.com>, <cynthia at sachs-bustos.com>

Hi Tom 
As we talk with Keith, here is the book ready for your magic. 
We have several review cycles with Cynthia before the meeting in London 
and I got today all the final inputs from the WG member. 
Thanks a lot for your support 
Best Regards 
Osvaldo 

Dr. Osvaldo Peinado 
Ground Operations Manager 
German Space Operations Center (GSOC)
Tel:  +49 8153 28 3010
Fax:  +49 8153 28 1456 
Mobile: +491729410099 
German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Oberpfaffenhofen
82234 Wessling
Germany 
 [attachment "CCSDS 766.2-R-0-november.doc" deleted by Gian Paolo 
Calzolari/esoc/ESA] _______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee 
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in 
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete 
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the 
sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20141125/aceb04ac/attachment.html>