[Sls-rfm] 401x0rp301 Agency Review conclusion - additional suggestions

[Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int]

Dear All,

it was brought to my attention by my colleague Salvador that there might 
be an ambiguity with the word "DOR tones" in recommends 15 of REC 2.5.7B.

The ambiguity comes from the fact that, differently from REC 2.5.6B, the 
tones are modulated and one may misinterpret this recommends to only 
restrict the subcarrier frequency.

I did a global search for tone in REC 2.5.7B. There are 4 occurrences of 
which only 1 should stay:

1) Considering B

(b)     that Delta-DOR measurement accuracy for spacecraft transmitting 
sinusoidal DOR tones as given in recommendation 2.5.6B can be limited by 
spectral mismatching between spacecraft and quasar signals;

This is a legitimate use as it points to REC 2.5.6B

2) Recommends 14

(14)    that the power flux density on the Earth of DOR tones outside the 
deep space band shall be limited to ?211 dBW/m2 in the 8 GHz band and 
?204 dBW/m2 in the 32 GHz band;

I propose to change "DOR tones" to "the RF DOR signal".

3) Recommends 15

(15)    that no DOR tones in the 31.3‐31.8 GHz band shall be employed.

I propose to change the sentence to "that the RF DOR signal shall not 
overlap with the 31.3-31.8 GHz band".

4) Annex A2.1

The measured baseband spectrum was flat within the DOR tone channels, but 
after the analog LPF there is approximately 3 dB of power variation across 
the 8 MHz PN spectrum.

I propose to change "within the DOR tone channels" to "within the DOR PN 
spectra"


Please have a look at my proposals and let me know by the end of the day 
if you can accept them. I know it is late but since this recommendation 
will stay in the WG until next meeting, I think we can still fix it now.
If you agree, I will make these changes as rev marks to the version that 
was distributed yesterday.

Regards,

Enrico




From:   Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA
To:     sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org, James.S.Border at jpl.nasa.gov, "Volk, 
Christopher P (US 335D)" <christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov>, Javier De 
Vicente/esoc/ESA at ESA, Marco Lanucara/esoc/ESA at ESA
Cc:     "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, 
gilles.moury at cnes.fr
Date:   26/10/20 16:20
Subject:        401x0rp301 Agency Review conclusion


Dear All,

as agreed by the WG, here are the conclusions of this agency review:

REC 2.5.6B and REC 3.1.6B received no RIDs and will be published in the 
401 BB as they are. 

REC 2.5.7B received 4 RIDs, all of editorial nature. RIDs disposition as 
well as updated REC as per RIDs disposition is attached. It will remain in 
the RFM WG until the two prototypes have been documented in the needed 
yellow book (planned for next meeting.)

Regards, Enrico

[attachment "401x0rp301.ESA_RID_JdV-disposit.docx" deleted by Enrico 
Vassallo/esoc/ESA] [attachment "401x0rp301.ESA_RID_AM-disposit.docx" 
deleted by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA] [attachment "401.0_2.5.7B_R1-after 
AR.doc" deleted by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA] 

P.S. Tom: please use your version for REC 2.5.6B amd 3.1.6B when modifying 
the 401-BB as directed by the SLS AD resolution. Where are you with the 
corrigendum on Table 2.6.14-1 "Recommended TTFRs for the 22.55-23.15 MHz 
and 25.5-27.0 GHz Bands"? Is it being done independently or shall it be 
done together with insertion of the revised REC 2.5.6B and 3.1.6B?


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/20201027/0d6842bc/attachment.htm>