[SLS-CC] [EXTERNAL] Re: VCM technical corrigendum wording (AI_21_01)

Andrea Modenini (external) Andrea.Modenini at esa.int
Wed Jul 28 14:42:48 UTC 2021


Dear Peter,
 thanks for your feedback. Sorry again for taking some time in replying, 
but I am still working 20% of the time.

Concerning the involvement of the RFM working group in the VCM technical 
corrigendum, we had the joint RFM/C&S for which edits were agreed, 
representative was always involved, and we never got negative feedback.
Additionally, this will be also crosschecked at SLS AD level before going 
to SLS resolution. 

Concerning the technical conclusions: VCM blue book defines the 
modulations (PSK/APSK), filtering/shaping (SRRC). There is nothing that 
prevents to define the transparent transmission of the bits as defined by 
ISO 7498. The remaining portions (frequency, phase noise tolerance, I/Q 
imbalance) in BlueBook 401 appear rather small for being an actual layer.
This was the conclusion of the WG, and we reached consensus as required by 
the CCSDS organization and processes YB. 

Finally, I wish to remark that we're dealing just with notional 
informative diagram. The BB clearly will include that 401 shall be taken 
into account, hence, from pragmatic point of view, I don't see any mistake 
in the WG assessment.


Kind Regards












HE Space Operations for ESA - European Space Agency
Ph.D. Andrea Modenini
Communication Systems & Technologies Engineer 
TT&C and PDT Systems & Techniques Section (TEC-EST)
RF Systems Division
ESTEC
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299
NL-2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
andrea.modenini at esa.int | www.esa.int
T +31 71 56 53439, M +31 6 484 56 527



From:   "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Andrea Modenini (external)" <Andrea.Modenini at esa.int>
Cc:     "Space Link Coding & Synchronization Working Group" 
<sls-cc at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA" 
<Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, "Lee, Dennis K (US 332G)" 
<dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Andrews, Kenneth S (US 332B)" 
<kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Hamkins, Jon (US 3300)" 
<jon.hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov>, "EXTERNAL-Pietras, John V (US 332C-Affiliate)" 
<john.pietras at gst.com>
Date:   26-07-21 23:14
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SLS-CC] VCM technical corrigendum 
wording (AI_21_01)



Hi Andrea,
 
Thanks for this feedback.  I have heard about this topic from both Ken 
Andrews and John Pietras.   I must say, in all honesty, that I am both not 
surprised and also disappointed by the choice that the SLS CC WG has made. 
 I also wonder if the RFM WG would agree with your characterization that 
the “RFM Blue Book 401 rather provides a set of requirements to be 
fulfilled when transmitting at Radio Frequency, but not a function.” 
 
In fact, that “pseudo protocol stack” diagram from 431, and also 131.0, 
.1, .2 makes direct reference to “Relationship to OSI Layers”.  This is 
not “functions”, per se, but “OSI layers”.   The text above this figure, 
in 431.0-B, says:
“The synchronization and channel coding sublayer provides methods of 
synchronization and channel coding for transferring Transfer Frames over a 
space link while the Physical Layer provides the RF and modulation methods 
for transferring a stream of bits over a space link in a single direction. 

This Recommended Standard covers functions in both the Synchronization and 
Channel Coding Sublayer and the Physical Layer. “
I think that we would all have to agree that the “functions” in the OSI 
Layer 1 relative to RF transmission include all of the physical layer 
aspects required to apply modulation, and to do filtering, signal shaping, 
and actual radiation of the RF signal.  For VCM we can add “physical layer 
signaling” to that set of functions.  All of these, as far as I can tell, 
are “functions” of Layer 1.
 
I could quote all of the relevant section of the BRM, ISO 7498, but I 
suspect you are familiar with them.  I will quote the most relevant parts:
7.7.3.3. Physical Connections
7.7.3.3.1 The Physical Layer provides for the transparent transmission of 
bit streams between data-link-entities across physical-connections. 
7.7.3.3.2 A data-circuit is a communication path in the physical media for 
OSI among two or more physical-entities, together with the facilities 
necessary in the Physical Layer for the transmission of bits on it. 
I think we all know that the BRM does not expressly cover RF 
communications, nor does it cover optical comms.  That said, it does use 
sufficiently broad language that it is, in my opinion, still an extremely 
useful reference.  In this case “facilities necessary in the Physical 
Layer for the transmission of bits” equates, in my mind, exactly to 
“modulation, filtering, signal shaping, and actual radiation of the RF 
signal”.  Whether the term of art is “facilities” or “functions” is a 
terminology distinction that does not feel like it is worth arguing about. 
 The BRM uses both “function” and “facility” and seems to mean more or 
less the same thing in both instances.
 
The last point I will make about this figure 2-1 is that it clearly states 
that the “VCM Protocol” covers all of the “Physical Layer”, which seems to 
mean all of OSI Layer 1.  I do believe that the VCM includes some physical 
layer functions, like a selection of modulations and pilot signals, but 
not all of them, so I continue to believe that this figure, on the surface 
of it, is both mis-leading and inaccurate.  I also believe that in the 
absence of the functions, features, and facilities defined in the CCSDS 
401.0-B that you would be lacking the required definitions for several key 
functions and / or facilities for RF signal radiation, and constraints 
thereon, that are only documented in CCSDS 401.0-B. 
 
My conclusion, therefore, is that if the CCSDS stack does not include, 
explicitly, CCSDS 401.0-B, there is no complete guidance for RF radiation, 
and therefore Layer 1 is incomplete.
 
I really wish that you guys would just fix these figures so that this 
ambiguity is removed.  The corresponding figure and text in TM Synch and 
channel coding, CCSDS 131.0-B, contains no such ambiguity.
 
Thanks, Peter
 
 
From: "Andrea Modenini (external)" <Andrea.Modenini at esa.int>
Date: Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:58 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Space Link Coding & Synchronization Working Group 
<sls-cc at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SLS-CC] VCM technical corrigendum wording 
(AI_21_01)
 
Dear Peter, 
 sorry for the late reply, I have been hold by other activities, and I am 
also in a personal leave. 

Regarding the stack, in our opinion the VCM Blue Book defines also the 
physical layer function, since it fully specifies the modulations and 
constellations to be implemented. 
In this respect, the RFM Blue Book 401 rather provides a set of 
requirements to be fulfilled when transmitting at Radio Frequency, but not 
a function. 

Hence, our preference as WG is to insert the sentences as indicated in my 
previous email, but to not modify the stack. 

Please let us know your opinion, so that we could possible proceed with 
the WG resolution. 


Regards 



HE Space Operations for ESA - European Space Agency 
Ph.D. Andrea Modenini
Communication Systems & Technologies Engineer 
TT&C and PDT Systems & Techniques Section (TEC-EST)
RF Systems Division
ESTEC
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299
NL-2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
andrea.modenini at esa.int | www.esa.int
T +31 71 56 53439, M +31 6 484 56 527 



From:        "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
To:        "Andrea Modenini (external)" <Andrea.Modenini at esa.int>, "Space 
Link Coding & Synchronization Working Group" <sls-cc at mailman.ccsds.org> 
Date:        07-07-21 21:05 
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SLS-CC] VCM technical corrigendum 
wording (AI_21_01) 

 
Dear Andrea & S&CC WG members,
 
I fully support the idea of aligning all three of the “VCM suite” coding 
and synch standards.  As we have tried to make clear in the updates we are 
making to the SCCS-ARD, our analysis shows that all three of these 
approaches are very nearly  identical technically, with only what appear 
to be modest differences in how they are designed.  I do not wish to get 
into the whole discussion of how we arrived at this situation, only to 
point out that this is where we are, and that this is how we view the 
technical details.
 
In the attached slides I have  included, as pgs 2 & 3, the way that we are 
approaching the description of what we are calling the “VCM Suite” and how 
we plan to document these relative to the rest of the S&CC specs as well 
as how they relate to the several link layer protocols.  We reviewed these 
diagrams during the  “SCCS Coordination” meeting that involved SLS, SIS, 
CSS, and SEA WG and Area leads. And we just  discussed these during the 
follow up SAWG meeting that Gilles was present at.  We agreed to ask your 
WG  for feedback, so I  am taking this opportunity to do this.
 
I have also included, on pg 1, a proposed  markup of your text and Fig 2-1 
from the 431.1 document.  We think it will be clearer if this figure, and 
the associated text, for the 431.1 (and the others in the VCM Suite) all 
use the identical figure, and that this figure, and the related text, 
clearly states that these standards only address the upper part 
(modulation sub-layer) of the Physical Layer and not the lower sub-layer 
where the 401.0 document addresses the RF frequency bands, bandwidth 
limitations, etc.
 
Please review this feedback and see if you can agree to it.  Also, it 
would be very useful to us if your WG would review the VCM Suite diagrams 
I have sent and make sure that they are technically correct.
 
Very best regards, Peter
 
 
From: SLS-CC <sls-cc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of "Andrea 
Modenini (external)" <Andrea.Modenini at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 9:30 AM
To: Space Link Coding & Synchronization Working Group 
<sls-cc at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SLS-CC] VCM technical corrigendum wording 
(AI_21_01)
 
Dear all, 
I did not receive any comment about the VCM BB from the WG. 

However, considering the outcome of the DVB-S2 BB review we had today, I 
have myself a comment. 
We aligned the SCCC and DVB-S2 BBs for having a sentence that  states the 
need to consider CCSDS 401 BB. 
On the same line, I would propose to modify Section 2 as provided below 
(italic part highlights the addition). 

You can find in attachment also the word file in tracking-changes mode for 
your convenience. 

Please let me know if there is any objection, or additional point to 
consider, no later than 12th July EOB. 
I will afterward request an Area Resolution for having the technical 
corrigendum. 

Kind Regards, 
Andrea 




------------- 
This Recommended Standard covers functions in both the Synchronization and 
Channel Coding Sublayer and the Physical Layer, the latter for what 
concerns the modulation schemes. CCSDS 401.0-B [5] covers additional 
features of the Physical Layer like frequency bands, polarizations, etc. 
that are not described or referenced here. 


HE Space Operations for ESA - European Space Agency 
Ph.D. Andrea Modenini
Communication Systems & Technologies Engineer 
TT&C and PDT Systems & Techniques Section (TEC-EST)
RF Systems Division
ESTEC
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299
NL-2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
andrea.modenini at esa.int | www.esa.int
T +31 71 56 53439 



From:        Andrea Modenini/estec/ESA 
To:        "Space Link Coding & Synchronization Working Group" 
<sls-cc at mailman.ccsds.org> 
Date:        10-06-21 17:28 
Subject:        [SLS-CC] VCM technical corrigendum wording (AI_21_01) 



Dear colleagues, 

please find enclosed the proposed changes by Jon to the VCM BB discussed 
during the joint C&S/RFM meeting. Please send your comments before 1st 
July 2021  (if any) directly to John with CC Enrico and I, and C&S mailing 
list. 


Regards 
Andrea 


HE Space Operations for ESA - European Space Agency 
Ph.D. Andrea Modenini
Communication Systems & Technologies Engineer 
TT&C and PDT Systems & Techniques Section (TEC-EST)
RF Systems Division
ESTEC
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299
NL-2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
andrea.modenini at esa.int | www.esa.int
T +31 71 56 53439 
----- Forwarded by Andrea Modenini/estec/ESA on 10-06-21 17:25 ----- 

From:        "Jon Hamkins" <Jon.Hamkins at jpl.caltech.edu> 
To:        "Andrea Modenini (external)" <Andrea.Modenini at esa.int>, 
"Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int> 
Date:        09-06-21 18:48 
Subject:        VCM technical corrigendum wording (AI_21_01) 




Andrea, Enrico, 
Attached is a draft VCM technical corrigendum in response to AI_21_01 from 
the C&S WG. I completed this in consultation with Ken Andrews and John 
Pietras. 
The main changes are in two places: Section 3.2.3 and Section 3.3.2.3 to 
3.3.2.4. In summary, with the new wording the randomization is determined 
by VCM type: 
Type 1 (SCCC-like) VCM will randomize the Transfer Frames as the SCCC 
standard does, using the TM randomizer. 
Type 2 (DVB-S2-like) VCM will randomize the sliced encoder-inputs as the 
DVB-S2 standard does, using the ETSI DVB-S2 baseband scrambler.
This will make the CCSDS VCM standard consistent with the 131.2-B-1 and 
131.3-B-1 books (SCCC and DVB-S2), with respect to randomization. 
These changes are not related to randomization that occurs after encoding. 
The VCM protocol standard already applies post-encoding randomization, at 
the physical layer. 
Can you forward this message to the RFM and C&S mailing lists along with 
your guidance on how/when to respond with comments? I believe we agreed to 
resolve this action by email. 
    ----Jon 
-- 
Jon Hamkins
Chief Technologist, Communications, Tracking, and Radar Division
O 818-354-4764 (preferred)   |   M 626-658-6220 (does not work at home)

JPL   |   jpl.nasa.gov [attachment 
"2021-05-27-VCM-431.1-technical-corrigendum-post-discussion-v3.doc" 
deleted by Andrea Modenini/estec/ESA] 
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).[attachment "2021-05-27 VCM 431.1 
Fig 2-1.pptx" deleted by Andrea Modenini/estec/ESA] 
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).



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/sls-cc/attachments/20210728/9834720a/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the SLS-CC mailing list