[Sls-rfm] Fw: SOIS-WIR Wireless Proximity Network Communications draft Blue Book

[Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int]

Dear All,

this is my proposed text to be sent to SOIS-WIR.

Basically, it is the agreed WG text apart from the final text included 
between >>> and in red color for those that get the colors in my email.

I decided to remove the book color change from blue to green or orange 
since, as remarked by the SLS AD, our justification: 

If the SOIS-WIR wishes to publish this document, the RFM WG would suggest 
a Green Book or, alternatively an Orange Book.  A Blue Book has to have 
strong simulation and/or analytical results to support a CCSDS protocol. 
And results must be confirmed by two agencies.  The RFM WG does not 
believe this standard has been met given the comments above and a general 
lack of solid documented experimental evidence. 

could be countered by the pending prototypes.

The reason for this major change comes from reading the CCSDS rules and 
the SOIS-WIR project. In principle the BB is not published until the 
relevant indendent prototypes are available so we may be able to make our 
point without creating too much confrontation (agency reviews are normally 
done before the protoypes).

Have a look at it and let me have your comments by Nov 25 (it's just 5 
lines.)

Regards, Enrico


----- Forwarded by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA on 23/11/20 16:13 -----

From:   Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA
To:     "Kevin K Gifford" <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Cc:     "Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA)" <brian.cascarano at canada.ca>, 
"Lansdowne, Chatwin (JSC-EV811)" <chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>, "Jonathan 
Wilmot" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>, "Ray Wagner" 
<raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>, "Siddhartha Subray" 
<Siddhartha.Subray at Colorado.EDU>, "sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org" 
<sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Stephen Braham" <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>
Date:   23/11/20 10:01
Subject:        Re: SOIS-WIR Wireless Proximity Network Communications 
draft Blue Book


Dear Kevin,

thanks for the provided material that the RFM WG has studied in detail in 
relations to the comments and requests for changes provided on the 
previous version of the book by the RFM WG.

I am pleased to report that th RFM WG finds the disposition of the 
comments about frequency bands in relation to SFCG Lunar Martian 
recommendations in line with RFM WG requests.

Concerning the protocols per say, the RFM WG would like to offer instead 
the following comments:

1.      Overall observation to this new passage in the executive summary: 
Most of the items listed are general background material and not specific 
to the application of the protocol to a planetary or lunar surface.  It’s 
odd that this information is contained in the executive summary section 
which is supposed to be summary of the entire document.  We will suggest 
below items that should be put in a background or introductory section.
2.      Page 2-2, item 1):  This point is more background information and 
should be in an introduction.
3.      Page 2-2, item 2):  “Channel models depend on environment and 
deployment architecture (see [36], [D23], [D24], [D25]).” Again while this 
statement is true, it is very general and more background information that 
should be in an introduction section, not a summary. 
4.      Page 2-2, item 2):  “LTE frame structure and timing inter-symbol 
interference (ISI) protection scales to multipath environments compatible 
with ~100 km link distances in mountainous terrains on Earth and will 
easily address most reasonable planetary, lunar, and other complex surface 
topography deployments.”  Where is the supporting documentation to this 
assertion?
5.      Page 2-2, item 2):  “Delay spread significantly below 1/15 ms has 
no impact on LTE symbol decoding. This supports a path-spread of 10 km for 
received multipath components. Channel models are studied in depth in 
IEEE, 3GPP, and ITU processes, easily supporting the relatively small 
networks envisioned for spaceflight networks.” Delay spread is a function 
of the channel, and RF frequency.  If you have a Lunar channel with 
reflection coefficients, carrier frequencies and Doppler that are 
different from the terrestrial coefficients, then that impacts the delay 
and Doppler spread which could make the total time spread be much longer 
and this would impact the architecture of the network.  A detailed study 
of the Lunar or planetary surface is required to make a detailed multipath 
model in order to make a good protocol.  We don’t see a reference or 
detailed study of the Lunar surface.  The closest reference is [D25], 
however this article deals with intra-crater communications which is not 
likely to be a location for a lunar base.
6.      Page 2-2, item 2):  “For additional technical background see 
Wireless Network Communications Overview for Space Mission Operations 
(reference [D1]).”  This reference gives some fundamental description of 
multipath but it doesn’t apply the information to a proposed Lunar or 
planetary network. Can the WG provide a reference that actually applies 
the theory to a planetary application? 
7.      Page 2-2, item 3):  This point is more background or introduction 
information and should not be in a summary section.
8.      Page 2-3, item 4):  This point is more background or introduction 
information and should not be in a summary section.
9.      Page 2-3, item 5):  This item is also background or introductory 
information.
 
The RFM WG general comment is that this new section starting at page 2-1 
does not address the original three comments which are repeated below for 
reference:
 
1.      Although document has a lot of information of the proposed 
standards, we don’t see requirements that are specific to Lunar 
environment, i.e. recommendation for locating base stations and what is 
the density of base stations for a required communications utilization.
2.      The channel model is not referenced or specified in the document. 
We would like to see a characterization of the RF environment so that the 
protocols are justified.  The protocols are designed for an Earth like 
environment so some justification of why this will work on the Lunar 
surface in necessary. 
a.      How does the multipath effects of the lunar surface affect the 
throughput of the links?
b.      Are there outages created by crater or surface shadowing?
c.      Is the multipath frequency selective or flat?  How does this 
affect the service quality?
3.      If there are supporting documents to the protocols for Lunar 
applications, please list.  The reference document list does not have 
this. Only terrestrial applications are specified for 3GPP.
 
>>>
The RFM WG has no evidence that the material included in the book is 
sufficient and appropriate for a recommended standard (blue book) until 
the activities with the two independent prototpyes (one by NASA/Nokia and 
one by CSA/Star Solutions as per 
https://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=703&Source=http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx
) are completed and the results are assessed by the RFM WG.
As such, noting that the BB cannot be published anyway before the two 
protypes have been demonstrated, the RFM WG recommends to SOIS-WIR not to 
proceed with the Agency Review of this book until the two prototypes are 
available to close all the issues highlighted by the RFM WG, assuming that 
the test plan for the prototypes will encompass all raised problems.
>>>
As said before, the RFM WG would be ready to help your group advance in 
this very interesting area. Joint working group meetings could be foreseen 
after addition of the support task in the RFM charter.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Enrico
(as RFM WG chairperson)



From:   "Kevin K Gifford" <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
To:     "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, 
"sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org" <sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc:     "Jonathan Wilmot" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>, "Ray Wagner" 
<raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>, "Lansdowne, Chatwin (JSC-EV811)" 
<chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>, "Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA)" 
<brian.cascarano at canada.ca>, "Stephen Braham" <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>, 
"Siddhartha Subray" <Siddhartha.Subray at Colorado.EDU>, "Kevin K Gifford" 
<kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Date:   09/11/20 23:11
Subject:        Re: SOIS-WIR Wireless Proximity Network Communications 
draft Blue Book



Dear SLS-RFM Working Group - 

Sincere thanks to the SLS-RFM WG for review of the draft CCSDS 883-0-B-0 
Wireless Proximity Network Communications Blue Book.

The SOIS-WIR WG has reviewed all the SLS-RFM comments and have composed 
dispositions for all comments.

Please find attached two documents:
-- A table-based response to all SLS-RFM comments (v0.10.06.00 SLS-RFM RID 
Table and Responses.docx)
-- The draft BB with the SOIS-WIR proposed updates that address all 
comments from SLS-RFM (v0.10.16.16.09 CCSDS 883-0-BBv1-0 Wireless 
Proximity Network Communications.docx)

The attached Blue Book has Track Changes ON, and the only changes in the 
document are the updates from the SOIS-WIR WG to address/disposition the 
SLS-RFM WG Review Items.  You can simply advance to the changes in the 
Blue Book with the 'Next Change' button where Reviewing.

The primary updates are on page 2-1 and page 2-2, then in Section 2.4.2 
starting on page 2-10 and page 2-11 (this includes the updated Table 2-3).

Thank you again for the thoughtful review and suggestions.  If there are 
any additional inputs from your Working Group, the SOIS-WIR WG will 
address/disposition during the nominal Agency Review Cycle.

Please let me know if any questions or concerns.

Thanks again SLS-RFM!

Kevin



From: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:51 AM
To: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Cc: Jonathan Wilmot <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>; Ray Wagner 
<raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org 
<sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: SOIS-WIR Wireless Proximity Network Communications draft Blue 
Book 
 
Dear Kevin, 

RFM WG has concluded discussions on the SOIS-WIR proxy draft BB. The 
agreed RFM WG position for SOIS-WIR is attached and is identical to the 
draft version submitted by Dennis for advance info. 

The RFM WG is looking forward to receiving SOIS-WIR replies and, if 
requested by your group, is ready to be actively involved in solving some 
of he identified problems. 

Best Regards, Enrico 





From:        "Lee, Dennis K (US 332G)" <dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov> 
To:        "Kevin K Gifford" <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>, 
"Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int> 
Cc:        "Jonathan Wilmot" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>, "Ray Wagner" 
<raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov> 
Date:        26/10/20 15:20 
Subject:        RE: RFM Working Group Agenda 


[attachment "Response to SOIS-WIR on CCSDS 883.0-BBv1_draft3.docx" deleted 
by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA] 
Kevin,
 
Attached is a compilation of the review feedback received from the RFM 
working group on the draft SOIS-WIR Wireless Proximity Network 
Communication Blue Book.  They are mainly focused on revisions to the 
spectrum utilization (section 2.4.2), Table 2-2, and information regarding 
lunar base station density and lunar surface channel models.  Please let 
us know if you have any questions about the RFM feedback.
 
Thanks,
Dennis 
 
From: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:00 AM
To: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int; Lee, Dennis K (US 332G) 
<dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Jonathan Wilmot <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>; Ray Wagner 
<raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org; Kevin K Gifford 
<kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RFM Working Group Agenda
 
Hi SLS-RFM, Dennis, Enrico - 
 
@Dennis: Can you please forward the SLS-RFM comments pertaining to the 
SOIS-WIR Wireless Proximity Network Communications draft Blue Book?  The 
SOIS-WIR WG would like to review the SLS-RFM comments.
 
Sincere thanks for your review efforts and valued inputs.
 
Kevin

From: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:18 AM
To: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Cc: Jonathan Wilmot <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>; Ray Wagner <
raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org <
sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: RFM Working Group Agenda 
 
Hi Kevin, 

we are fine and hope the same is true for you. 

The RFM WG works with papers submitted two weeks in advance of the meeting 
like other SLS groups. In light of the remote meeting for Fall 2020, we 
did documents review by correspondence. The agenda does not entail a 
physical mtg or videoconf, but just that we work on these issues. 

The WG did review your input and Dennis was about to contact you with our 
findings/recommendations. 

So please refrain from sending us another version. Have first a look at 
our recommendations and let us know what you think and what you could do 
about them. We can still iterate our recommendations with your group, 
though. If you are willing to take on board our requests, we can give you 
a few weeks to carry it out. 

Regards, Enrico 



From:        "Kevin K Gifford" <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
To:        "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, 
"Blackwood, Michael D. via CESG-All" <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org> 
Cc:        "Ray Wagner" <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>, "Jonathan Wilmot" <
jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>, "Kevin K Gifford" <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu
> 
Date:        20/10/20 16:05 
Subject:        Re: [Cesg-all] RFM Working Group Agenda 




Hi Enrico - 

I hope all is well for you and that you and your family are healthy! 

I'll send the SOIS-WIR draft Blue Book to you and the SLS-RFM group later 
this week so that you will have the latest version of the document that 
will go through Secretariat publication processing. 

Please let me know if any questions or concerns. 

Thanks. 

Kevin 


From: CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of 
Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:34 AM
To: Blackwood, Michael D. via CESG-All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [Cesg-all] RFM Working Group Agenda 
 
Dear Michael, 
the agenda follows.
Best Regards, Enrico
 


1. Modulations for high rate uplinks with ranging at 22 GHz 
2. Disposition RIDs concerning CCSDS 401.0-RP-30.1 
3. Update to Draft 23/27 GHz TTFR Recommendation 
4. Update to Draft Flexible Turnaround Ratio Recommendation 
5. Consideration of HOMs for non-EESS missions 
6. Review of Draft Wireless Proximity Network Blue Book (SOIS-WIR) 
7. Impact of VCM to EESS HOMs recommendations 


[attachment "v0.10.16.16.09 CCSDS 883-0-BBv1-0 Wireless Proximity Network 
Communications.docx" deleted by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA] 
[attachment "v0.10.06.00 SLS-RFM RID Table and Responses.docx" deleted by 
Enrico Vassallo/esoc/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).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-rfm/attachments/20201123/e7a585f6/attachment-0001.htm>