[Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed changes

Thu Apr 8 18:44:49 UTC 2021

Gian Paolo,
              As much as I like details, I agree that the title need not say what the data is.  But it would be good to change the term "Command" and "Telemetry".
              A big part of the intent of USLP is to make the "forward" link and "return" link as similar as possible.  But we may still want to treat them with some differentiation.  An Earth based receiver can be much more complicated than a space based receiver.   An Earth based transmitter can have much more EIRP than a space based one. The section titles can be simple but if possible, it would be nice if they informed the reader of the differences.  It may be as simple as words like "forward" and "return" to indicate the initiator and the respondent, and let the section contents cover the details.
Thanks,
Victor

From: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 2:14 PM
To: Sank, Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] <victor.j.sank at nasa.gov>
Cc: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int; Jon Hamkins <Jon.Hamkins at jpl.caltech.edu>; sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: RE: [Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed changes

Victor,
        my basic question with respect to a specific aspect of this discussion  is the following: does RFM WG really need to enter into the detail of the type of carried data?
I mean, the input to a modulator is normally a stream of encoded bits. Why would RFM need to know if those bits are from Housekeeping Telemetry or from a scientific payload or from both?
The same for telecommand: does the modulator care about knowing the data contain a command or a memory upload?

All this acknowledging that other points of the discussion may require further discussion by the WG.

Ciao

Gian Paolo

From:        "Sank, Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]" <victor.j.sank at nasa.gov<mailto:victor.j.sank at nasa.gov>>
To:        "Jon Hamkins" <Jon.Hamkins at jpl.caltech.edu<mailto:Jon.Hamkins at jpl.caltech.edu>>, "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>, "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int<mailto:Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int<mailto:Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>>
Cc:        "sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Date:        08-04-21 20:04
Subject:        RE: [Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed changes
________________________________

Dear Enrico,

              Before jumping into the section titles, I think we need to agree on the meaning of the basic terms.

              It seems to me that the term "command" is a limited term and should be improved.  Saying "uplink" is no longer good enough since we must cover cross links.  The term "Forward Link" has value because it can cover many cases and to me implies the sender, no matter if it is an "up" or "down" link.  It does not cover what kind of data is being sent.

              A remaining part of the terminology question is whether we want to term to cover the type of data or information that is being conveyed.  The term "command" is very specific, it is a command and not science data or a software load.  But the term "telemetry" seems to be less specific.  I generally think of it as the return of housekeeping and engineering information but I believe the term is used very general to also include the returned (down linked) science or operational data.  We need to define what we mean by "telemetry".  My vote would be to use that term "telemetry" for the housekeeping and engineering data on the return link.  On some projects we refer to the other returned data as the "operational" data for a space weather satellite and "science" data for a purely science satellite.  I do not have a strong opinion, just stating terms I have seen in use.

The section titles

              Seems to me that section 2.2 Command and 2.4 Telemetry, titles need to be improved.

I hesitate to propose the possible rewording until we decide on the definition of the terms and if we what the title to convey of the kind of data transferred.  I think the title should contain some detail but at the same time be general enough to allow for things we have not thought of, if such thing is possible.

Regards,

Victor

From: SLS-RFM <sls-rfm-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Jon Hamkins via SLS-RFM
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 11:20 AM
To: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>; Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int<mailto:Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>
Cc: sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed changes

I think the note is a good idea to explain the more general nature of these transmissions. If a change in terminology is made, I suggest coordination with C&S and OPT Working Groups, because their blue books are also using the terms telemetry and/or telecommand.
     ----Jon

Jon Hamkins
Chief Technologist, Communications, Tracking, and Radar Division
O 818-354-4764 (preferred)   |   M 626-658-6220 (does not work at home)

JPL   |   jpl.nasa.gov

On 4/8/2021 3:21 AM, Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> wrote:

Dear Enrico,
       frankly speaking, the third possibility look to me the best one.
If strongly needed, a note could be added about using historical titles.

The general problem is that using new/different terms - as you correctly remarks - 401.0-B may enter in conflict with different fora including usage within CCSDS.

As an example, the notation forward/return (link) is mainly used to generalise the diction specially when one side in not on Earth as done in Proximity-1 Physical Layer book (see https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/211x1b4e1.pdf<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.us%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fpublic.ccsds.org%2FPubs%2F211x1b4e1.pdf__%3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!f3bYBbEBsgWLEXHbQyqr6j0l8bZycehpQM0Ljy2_zpwWO2EY_xzn3CRU5kUrbGbUFx_e-oBA%24&data=04%7C01%7Cvictor.j.sank%40nasa.gov%7C0a0a4eb3d9d443ceec5008d8faba0c27%7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b%7C0%7C0%7C637535024283245463%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=T6%2BFIS3YPSCoWUZ1Z7CpSuDZpg2X03oQ4zZ99SfsClU%3D&reserved=0> )

Ciao

Gian Paolo

From:        Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int<mailto:Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>
To:        sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:        08-04-21 10:05
Subject:        [Sls-rfm] CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed changes
Sent by:        "SLS-RFM" <sls-rfm-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org><mailto:sls-rfm-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>

________________________________

Dear RFM WG colleagues,

discussing high rate 22 GHz uplink recommendations, we noted that the current structure naming convention may not be appropriate to cover "generic" data transfer applications:
       2.1        Earth-to-Space Radio Frequency                2.4        Telemetry
      2.2        Telecommand                                        2.5        Radio Metric
      2.3        Space-to-Earth Radio Frequency                2.6        Spacecraft

One possible solution would be to change the title of section 2.2 to something like "Telecommand and forward data" and that of section 2.4 to something like "Telemetry and return data".

This is to distinguish between telecommand and uplink data transfers (like on-board software patch uploading, etc.) and between (HK) telemetry and payload transmissions.
Note that already now recs 2.4.8 and 2.4.23 do not mention telemetry in the title and deal with payload data. However, both recommendations have pictures for symbol rate definition with captions indicating telemetry symbol rate. I assume we will have the same in section 2.2.
One would need to check in detail all recommendations in 2.2 and 2.4, which is a lot of work I think.

Another possibility is to change the section titles to "Telecommand (including data transfer)" and "Telemetry (including data transfer)" so that we can avoid checking current recommendations for consistency.

In addition, one could use as alternative to "data transfer" the "payload" word although this is not generally utilized to indicate the same thing in different fora.

The third possibility is to ignore this semantic problem and leave everything unchanged.

Could I have your view  by April 15 COB?

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<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).
_______________________________________________
SLS-RFM mailing list
SLS-RFM at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SLS-RFM at mailman.ccsds.org>
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sls-rfm<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.us%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsls-rfm__%3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!f3bYBbEBsgWLEXHbQyqr6j0l8bZycehpQM0Ljy2_zpwWO2EY_xzn3CRU5kUrbGbUFxhy8Edz%24&data=04%7C01%7Cvictor.j.sank%40nasa.gov%7C0a0a4eb3d9d443ceec5008d8faba0c27%7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b%7C0%7C0%7C637535024283245463%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=G4KZfEafQAOZ3%2FHqjSD8STpr7akBtZD75wYiML77sf4%3D&reserved=0>

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<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).

_______________________________________________

SLS-RFM mailing list

SLS-RFM at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SLS-RFM at mailman.ccsds.org>
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sls-rfm__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!f3bYBbEBsgWLEXHbQyqr6j0l8bZycehpQM0Ljy2_zpwWO2EY_xzn3CRU5kUrbGbUFxhy8Edz$<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.us%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsls-rfm__%3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!f3bYBbEBsgWLEXHbQyqr6j0l8bZycehpQM0Ljy2_zpwWO2EY_xzn3CRU5kUrbGbUFxhy8Edz%24&data=04%7C01%7Cvictor.j.sank%40nasa.gov%7C0a0a4eb3d9d443ceec5008d8faba0c27%7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b%7C0%7C0%7C637535024283255424%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=e3D1NEv1n6wsTVVTNyrZf23K94FyrCeewver9VUzKwE%3D&reserved=0>

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<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-rfm/attachments/20210408/06c9f6d1/attachment-0001.htm>