[Sls-rfm] Comments to RFM WG Fall 2020 inputs

[Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int]

Dear All,

by the deadline of Oct 19, the following set of comments were provided in 
writing and therefore will be considered by the WG:

1. Comments to SLS-RFM_20-02                            by NASA
2. Comments to SLS-RFM_20-06                            by ESA
3. Comments to SLS-RFM_20-07                            by NASA
4. Comments to SLS-RFM_20-09                            by ESA

5. Proposed reply on CCSDS 883.0-BBv1           by chair and deputy chair
6. Comments to proposed reply on CCSDS 883.0-BBv1       by CNES
7. Comments to CCSDS 883.0-BBv1                 by NASA

Comments 1-3 are all of clarification nature and could be addressed by a 
reply by the authors of the document or by an updated document. Authors 
may do this by Oct 26 or by taking an action item for next meeting.
Would the authors of these 3 documents indicate the preferred way forward?

Comments 4 concern a recommendation proposed to go to agency review so 
they should be answered before we proceed further. I am kindly asking 
Dennis to indicate by when he could reply and provide an updated 
recommendation version.

Document 5 has already been updated with relevant text from document 6 
focusing on SFCG and frequencies, and would be ready for submission to 
SOIS. However, the comments in document 7 would sort of block the CCSDS 
process of SOIS by requesting inputs to RFM WG.
This is a sensitive issue. Since the comments were generated by NASA, SOIS 
chair is from NASA, and some exchanges took place between SOIS chair and 
SLS RFM deputy chair also from NASA, I would kindly ask NASA to suggest an 
acceptable way forward to the RFM WG by Oct 26 latest.
More info on this but also on the other documents and on the on-going 
agency review (deadline for RIDs is today) can be seen in the attachment, 
which is a living document until it is approved by the WG at the end of 
next week.

Should you also have different interpretations from me on the input 
documents disposition in the attachment, please feel free to let me know 
by Oct 26.

The way I see the received WG inputs and comments, I think we can proceed 
by correspondence and avoid the teleconf tentatively planned for Oct 29. 
Of course, I need to see if more RIDs are submitted to the agency review 
before the end of the day and if they invalidate my reasoning.

Please let me have your views on my proposed disposition and reply on the 
planning questions I raised.

Regards, Enrico




----- Forwarded by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA on 19/10/20 16:05 -----

From:   Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA
To:     sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org
Date:   13/10/20 13:29
Subject:        RFM input papers list for Fall 2020


Please submit your comments in writing to the inputs latest by Oct 19.

Regards, Enrico

[attachment "SLS-RFM (Fall 2020 Input Papers List) i1.0.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/20201020/0c19b857/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SLS-RFM (Fall 2020 Proposed Inputs Disposition)_d0.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 20053 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-rfm/attachments/20201020/0c19b857/attachment-0001.obj>