[Sls-rfm] editorially revised TTFR recs

[Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int]

Tom,

here are the 10 editorially revised recs with the new footnote included as 
per 2.6.11A agreement.
I trust you will publish them asap.

Best Regards, Enrico





From:   "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
To:     <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>
Cc:     <sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   02/06/2017 16:19
Subject:        RE: revised REC 2.6.11A



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.
 


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/20170606/ac71a4b6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TTFR Recs Editorials_new proposal.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 49207 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-rfm/attachments/20170606/ac71a4b6/attachment.obj>