From Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int Mon Jan 13 08:38:25 2020 From: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int (Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:38:25 +0100 Subject: [Sls-rfm] 401x0rp293_CESG_Approval.pdf Message-ID: <28037_1578904707_5E1C2C83_28037_398_1_OFDF6B0245.7F96A2F9-ONC12584EE.002E5FA2-C12584EE.002F76B0@esa.int> Dear Gian Paolo, Gilles and Tom, at Gian Paolo's request I went through this document and I found a problem. The issue has nothing to do with Tom's editing. It was there (unnoticed) since the input paper was submitted to the RFM WG, discussed, amended and turned into a WG output. Having checked with Dennis, I can confirm that it is only applicable to the editorially modified recommendation 2.4.7 and its recommends (1) that reads as: (1) that for modulation schemes which use a subcarrier, the subcarrier to bit rate ratio should be an integer; Now in the spirit of the editorial changes introduced in the other sections of rec 2.4.7, this should instead be written as; (1) that for modulation schemes which use a subcarrier, the subcarrier to coded symbol rate ratio should be an integer; I trust that you have no problem with the suggested editorial change and that Tom can implement it before going for CMC approval. Best Regards, Enrico 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: From Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int Mon Jan 13 19:46:03 2020 From: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int (Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:46:03 +0100 Subject: [Sls-rfm] Fwd: 401x0rp293_CESG_Approval.pdf Message-ID: <31038_1578944764_5E1CC8FC_31038_1456_1_OF1531FFC3.06E4A119-ONC12584EE.006C958A-1578944763279@esa.int> Begin forwarded message: > From: "Thomas Gannett" > Date: January 13, 2020 at 19:00:53 GMT+1 > To: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int, Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int > Cc: "'Moury Gilles'" > Subject: RE: 401x0rp293_CESG_Approval.pdf > > Dear Enrico: > > I have made the change in the document file. (No other formal steps are needed.) > > Best regards, > Tom > > > > Logothete, L.L.C. > thomas.gannett at tgannett.net > +1 443 472 0805 > > From: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int [mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int] > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 12:23 PM > To: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int > Cc: Thomas Gannett; Moury Gilles > Subject: RE: 401x0rp293_CESG_Approval.pdf > > Enrico, > No problem for me as well. > Just waiting Tom's confirmation he can implement those changes with no other formal steps. > > Regards > > Gian Paolo > > > > From: "Moury Gilles" > To: "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" , "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" , "Thomas Gannett" > Cc: "sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org" > Date: 13-01-20 18:12 > Subject: RE: 401x0rp293_CESG_Approval.pdf > > > Dear Enrico, > The proposed modification is indeed necessary to avoid ambiguities. I concur with this editorial change. > > Best regards, > > Gilles > > > Gilles MOURY > CNES Toulouse > De : Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int > Envoyé : lundi 13 janvier 2020 09:38 > À : Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int; Moury Gilles ; Thomas Gannett > Cc : sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org > Objet : 401x0rp293_CESG_Approval.pdf > > Dear Gian Paolo, Gilles and Tom, > > at Gian Paolo's request I went through this document and I found a problem. The issue has nothing to do with Tom's editing. It was there (unnoticed) since the input paper was submitted to the RFM WG, discussed, amended and turned into a WG output. > > Having checked with Dennis, I can confirm that it is only applicable to the editorially modified recommendation 2.4.7 and its recommends (1) that reads as: > (1) that for modulation schemes which use a subcarrier, the subcarrier to bit rate ratio should be an integer; > > > Now in the spirit of the editorial changes introduced in the other sections of rec 2.4.7, this should instead be written as; > (1) that for modulation schemes which use a subcarrier, the subcarrier to coded symbol rate ratio should be an integer; > > > I trust that you have no problem with the suggested editorial change and that Tom can implement it before going for CMC approval. > > Best Regards, Enrico > 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). 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: