[Sls-slp] [EXTERNAL] Re: Your LFSR OID frame RIDs affecting USLP, TM, AOS SDLPs

Tue Jun 1 14:41:25 UTC 2021

Victor,

you misunderstand me ... I was trying to be funny. 

Sorry for not being clear,

Enrico

From:   "Sank, Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS 
INC]" <victor.j.sank at nasa.gov>
To:     "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>
Cc:     "Kazz, Greg J (JPL-312B)[JPL Employee]" 
<greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Andrews, Kenneth S (JPL-332B)[JPL Employee]" 
<kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Rodriguez, Shannon (GSFC-5670)" 
<shannon.rodriguez-1 at nasa.gov>, "Kazz, Greg J(US 312B) via SLS-SLP" 
<sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org>, "SLS-SLP" 
<sls-slp-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Fong, Wai H. (GSFC-5670)" 
<wai.h.fong at nasa.gov>, "Lee, Wing-tsz (GSFC-5670)" 
<wing-tsz.lee-1 at nasa.gov>, "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" 
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date:   01/06/21 16:26
Subject:        RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sls-slp] Your LFSR OID frame RIDs 
affecting USLP, TM, AOS SDLPs

Enrico,
              I did not understand you comment.  I said “My question is 
general CCSDS standards.  I would like to see a standard, MatLab, IEEE, or 
whatever.”
I am simply looking for a standard.  I suggested IEEE and you seem to be 
criticizing that.  I don’t understand. 
Victor

From: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:38 AM
To: Sank, Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] 
<victor.j.sank at nasa.gov>
Cc: Kazz, Greg J (JPL-312B)[JPL Employee] <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>; 
Andrews, Kenneth S (JPL-332B)[JPL Employee] 
<kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>; Rodriguez, Shannon (GSFC-5670) 
<shannon.rodriguez-1 at nasa.gov>; Kazz, Greg J(US 312B) via SLS-SLP 
<sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org>; SLS-SLP <sls-slp-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>; 
Fong, Wai H. (GSFC-5670) <wai.h.fong at nasa.gov>; Lee, Wing-tsz (GSFC-5670) 
<wing-tsz.lee-1 at nasa.gov>; Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sls-slp] Your LFSR OID frame RIDs affecting USLP, 
TM, AOS SDLPs

Normally the two of us tend to disagree on PN and PN-like signals. I see 
you are trying to extend the disagreement to PN registers nomenclature !!! 

I think I did not say anything but being a senior IEEE member I would not 
accept non-IEEE terminology.... 

In any case, Greg made a nice proposal, I would subscribe too. 

No more on this from me, 

Enrico 

From:        "Sank, Victor J.\(GSFC-567.0\)\[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND 
APPLICATIONS INC\] via SLS-SLP" <sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org> 
To:        "Andrews, Kenneth S (JPL-332B)[JPL Employee]" <
kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Cc:        "Kazz, Greg J\(JPL-312B\)\[JPL Employee\]" <
greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Kazz, Greg J\(US 312B\) via SLS-SLP" <
sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Fong, Wai H.\(GSFC-5670\)" <
wai.h.fong at nasa.gov>, "Rodriguez, Shannon\(GSFC-5670\)" <
shannon.rodriguez-1 at nasa.gov>, "Lee, Wing-tsz\(GSFC-5670\)" <
wing-tsz.lee-1 at nasa.gov> 
Date:        01/06/21 04:11 
Subject:        Re: [Sls-slp] Your LFSR OID frame RIDs affecting USLP, TM, 
AOS SDLPs 
Sent by:        "SLS-SLP" <sls-slp-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> 

Ken,
              Did you have any comment about the use of Fibonacci vs 
Galois for maximal pattern randomizers?  If so I think I missed it.  As I 
remember Greg asked you to explain the difference in the seeds for the two 
representations and said that both representations would be shown in his 
book. 
My question is general CCSDS standards.  I would like to see a standard, 
MatLab, IEEE, or whatever.  For coding like BCH, that uses a polynomial 
that is not irreducible (only 4 terms and it is “reducible”, g(x) = 
x^7+x^6 + x^2 + 1 can be factored into (x + 1)(x^6 + x + 1)), I do not 
know if a Fibonacci equivalent can generate the parity.  Can it?   If it 
can, then for the following reason, I suggest that for any future CCSDS 
book, we use Fibonacci for all shift registers diagrams.
A maximal pattern register diagram can be either in the Fibonacci or 
Galois type representation, as you have submitted for the long randomizer. 
 I am recommending Fibonacci be used in CCSDS books at least where maximal 
and Gold codes are covered, since the output pattern is easily seen based 
on the register contents.   Since CCSDS does not recommend implementation, 
the user is free to use Galois for implementation if that is their 
preference.    It would be nice if we can help the understanding of 
engineers in the field that are not PhDs.  The fact that you were asked to 
explain why the seeds for the Fibonacci and Galois are different is 
telling. 
              I do not agree with the comment made by Enrico? or was it 
GP?, that since the BCH or other code in the book used a Galois type 
format, that the maximal or Gold code representation used should therefore 
be in Galois format. 
              I would love to hear your comments.  (and can the BCH be 
shown in a Fibonacci format?) 
Thanks,
Victor 

From: Sank, Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] 
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 1:16 PM
To: Andrews, Kenneth S (JPL-332B)[JPL Employee] <
kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Kazz, Greg J (US 312B) via SLS-SLP <sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org>; Kazz, 
Greg J (US 312B) <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: Your LFSR OID frame RIDs affecting USLP, TM, AOS SDLPs

Ken,
              Maximal pattern shift registers.  LFSR
              CCSDS is not supposed to make recommendations about 
implementation.  For implementing I understand that the Galois shift 
register is sometimes preferred over the Fibonacci form.  However, for 
understanding and for setting an initial seed, Fibonacci has tremendous 
advantage because WYSIWYG, if you remember that phrase from the early 
Apple computers, what you see is what you get.
              You might also remember that we had a recent go-around in 
the code and synch WG about how to show these shift registers and we 
(GSFC) were recommending Fibonacci with particular labeling of the cells 
so that the polynomial is directly related to the cells that are tapped. 
Yes, I realize that this can also be done for the Galois form.  Another 
value of the Fibonacci with the particular cell numbering is that it is 
what MatLab uses.  So when people are doing simulations, no conversion is 
needed. 
              As you might remember there is an ambiguity between the 
associated polynomial and the shift register labeling.  A particular 
pattern can be generated in one direction or the reverse.  We had a 
particular proposal and it turned out that MatLab used the same 
convention.     Our proposal was discarded since it would be too much 
editing to get all the books to follow the same convention, and maybe 
other reasons. 
              But in any case, seems better from an understanding point of 
view to use Fibonacci. 

Victor

From: Kazz, Greg J (US 312B) <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 12:31 PM
To: Andrews, Kenneth S (JPL-332B)[JPL Employee] <
kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Sank, Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] <
victor.j.sank at nasa.gov>; Kazz, Greg J (US 312B) via SLS-SLP <
sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Your LFSR OID frame RIDs affecting USLP, TM, AOS SDLPs

Hi Ken,

The SLP WG decided to put both of your diagrams into a new non-normative 
annex in USLP, TM, and AOS.
The text in the normative part of the link layer books will state:

The TFDZ of an OID Transfer Frame shall be generated by use of a 32-cell 
Linear Feedback Shift Register (LFSR) with polynomial 1 + D + D2 + D22 +D
32, see Annex X. 

Where Annex X is TBD and will be added by me to the document.

We have some questions and requests for you:

1.        Why does the initialization data differ from one figure to the 
other one? 
2.        The ‘1’ in the figures are misleading to some WG members, please 
replace ‘1’ with D sub zero i.e., D0 in the figures.
3.        Consensus of WG was to specify the initialization vector 

Thanks!
Greg

Greg Kazz
Principal Engineer
Technical Group Supervisor,
PSSE/EEISE/PPSE (312B)
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Dr., M/S 301-490
Pasadena, CA 91109
1+(818)393 6529(voice)
1+(818)393 6871(fax)
email: greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov 

_______________________________________________
SLS-SLP mailing list
SLS-SLP at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sls-slp

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: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-slp/attachments/20210601/91e97040/attachment-0001.htm>