[Sls-rfm] revised REC 2.6.11A

[Thomas Gannett]

Hi, Enrico:

 

If your proposal is to make no changes to the text of the other 10
recommendations, but to add a single footnote to each, I see no problem with
doing that as editorial changes.

 

Best regards

 

Thomas Gannett

thomas.gannett at tgannett.net

+1 443 472 0805

 

From: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int [mailto:Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int] 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 3:11 AM
To: Thomas Gannett
Cc: sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Fw: revised REC 2.6.11A

 

Dear Tom, 

I think we have found a reasonable compromise. Can you check if the changes
in 2.6.11A below when done on the other 10 recs on transponder turn-around
ratios can be classified as "editorial corrections"? 

If your answer is positive, I will send you the 10 revised recs later this
week. 

Regards, Enrico 
----- Forwarded by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA on 01/06/2017 09:04 ----- 

From:        Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA 
To:        donald.p.olsen at aero.org, fanyanan at nssc.ac.cn,
amanuel.geda at dlr.de, stefan.veit at dlr.de, gian.paolo.calzolari at esa.int,
massimo.bertinelli at esa.int, wai.h.fong at nasa.gov, victor.j.sank at nasa.gov,
dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov, jon.hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov,
andrews at shannon.jpl.nasa.gov, brent.r.andres at nasa.gov,
joseph.a.downey at nasa.gov, i.kalininskaya at mail.ru, a762642 at yandex.ru 
Date:        29/05/2017 11:53 
Subject:        revised REC 2.6.11A 

  _____  



Dear RFM WG San Antonio meeting participants, 

you may remember we discussed the two additional considerings (j and k) and
recommend (3 and 4) triggered by Victor's comments on digital transponders.
One of you stated that they should not be included but in the interest of a
consensus we agreed to add them but in a soft form with no real value
specified. 

We also applied the same format to 10 editorially revised transponder
turn-around ratios recommendations. 

As you saw in the RFM mailman correspondence, these additions would require
agency review also for the 10 editorially revised recs ..... This is to me a
waste of time and resources since what we added are just sentences to
explain what can happen in real life but we have no specified values. This
is also NOT a cross support issue since the orbit determination performance
is what it is no matter which agency does the measurement. 

As such, I tried to change these into a non-normative footnote that should
accomplish the same goal of alerting mission designers into taking into
account non ideal implementations in the orbit determination software. 

Please let me know if you can live with it. If there are no oppositions, I
would also do the same for the 10 recs we discussed and ask the AD and the
Editor to just do an editorial change in the BB for these 10 recs. 

Looking forward to your approval by June 31, end of business, 

Regards, Enrico 




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/sls-rfm/attachments/20170602/06f11be1/attachment.html>