[Sls-slp] Fw: Results of Recent CESG Polls

Tue Jan 27 12:18:32 EST 2026

FYI

Brian Oliver
CCSDS IT Tech Support – Web Developer

boliver at asrcfederal.com

c: (937) 499-3591

7000 Muirkirk Meadows Drive, Beltsville, MD 20705

asrcfederal.com<https://www.asrcfederal.com/> | Purpose Driven. Enduring Commitment.

________________________________
From: Oliver, Brian H <BOliver at asrcfederal.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 12:16 PM
To: Mehran Sarkarati via CESG-All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Results of Recent CESG Polls

All,

Please forgive me for the delay on announcing these poll results.  We had implemented some automation, which has sense broke due to security changes tied to my e-mail account.

Looking for a better long-term solution

#####################

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2025-11-001 Approval to release CCSDS 211.2-P-3.1, Proximity-1 Space Link Protocol—Coding and Synchronization Sublayer

Results of CESG poll beginning 2025-11-14 and ending 2025-12-15:
Agency
Results
Conditions
CSS-AD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
1) Both yellow highlighting (mostly) and change bars (a couple) appear to indicate changes in the document. The change bars do not appear indpendently of the yellow highlighting.  Suggest just using one method or the other exclusively, unless indicating change via the yellow highlighting was not indicated (in which case what does it indicate?).   Rationale:  this will help the agency reviewers ensure that that they are looking at changes rather than formatting.
SIS-AD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
As also stated by Erik, I'm also not super-comfortable with the way changes are appearing in the document. A consistent way to shown them throughout the entire document should be better used.
Another point is the fact that the list of references shows a few apparently going to be published in January '26. Given the current situation with delays in CCSDS processes, are we sure that this is really the case? I'm not much concerned about the dates per se, but about the fact the reference to be consulted may not be yet available.
SLS-DAD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
Page 3.6; Paragraph 3.4.2.1:
A space may be inserted between "1000" and "sps", and between "4096000" and "sps", and a "in" may be added,  in the following sentance: "The current data rate is configured using the Link Establishment & Control directive defined as part of the Type 5 directives of reference [3], and it is selected in such a way that the corresponding Rcs value falls in the interval 1000sps – 4096000sps"

MOIMS-AD
APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY
SEA-AD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
Need to fix the formatting - mixture of change bars and yellow.

SOIS-AD
DISAPPROVE WITH COMMENT (state detailed conditions for disapproval)
Please see the comments in the attached two documents. Please also see the comments in the other assoicated proximity link documents which were polled together with this document.

https://spacecomm.sharepoint.com/sites/FM/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/FM/Lists/CESGPollResultsNew/Attachments/98/Issues%20for%20211x2p31.docx&action=default&mobileredirect=true
Total Respondents: 6
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Disapproved
Proposed Secretariat Action: Inform the Working Group

#####################

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2025-11-002 Approval to release CCSDS 211.0-P-6.1, Proximity-1 Space Link Protocol—Data Layer

Results of CESG poll beginning 2025-11-14 and ending 2025-12-15:
Agency
Results
Conditions
CSS-AD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
1) Suggest adding key highlights of changes in the document change log.  Rationale:  the change logs just indicates this is the next draft which, for a reviewer not inimitate with Prox-1, provides no basis for comparison as to why we have this version. For agency reveiw this will help orient readers/reviewers as well as facilitating a more rapid understanding of CCSDS efforts re Prox-1.
SIS-AD
APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY
SLS-DAD
APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY
MOIMS-AD
APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY
SEA-AD
APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY
SOIS-AD
DISAPPROVE WITH COMMENT (state detailed conditions for disapproval)
Please see the comments in the attached document. Please also see the comments in the other assoicated proximity link documents which were polled together with this document.

https://spacecomm.sharepoint.com/sites/FM/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/FM/Lists/CESGPollResultsNew/Attachments/97/211x0p60%20-%20Data%20Link%20Layer.docx&action=default&mobileredirect=true
Total Respondents: 6
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Disapproved
Proposed Secretariat Action: Inform the Working Group

#####################

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2025-11-003 Approval to release CCSDS 211.1-P-4.1, Proximity-1 Space Link Protocol—Physical Layer

Results of CESG poll beginning 2025-11-14 and ending 2025-12-15:
Agency
Results
Conditions
CSS-AD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)

  1.  Suggest updating other prox-1 references to note forthcoming books; rationale: ensure agency reviewers are aware that other Prox-1 book updates are available
  2.  The term "remote vehicle" is used without definition; suggest adding a definition as, and a typical proximal and usage scenario all vehicles involved can be considered to be "remote". Presumably the "remote vehicle" in this case is the one that is receiving the hailing  and not initiating it?
  3.  For the new S-Band material, it appears that there is a limited set of channels and frequencies (see table 5-1).  Has this been checked against plausible lunar comm scenarios re number of orbiters and "remote vehicles" to ensure there will not be disruptive hailing "conjunction" as well as exhausting the available "working channel" frequencies?

CSS-AD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)

  1.  Suggest updating other prox-1 references to note forthcoming books; rationale: ensure agency reviewers are aware that other Prox-1 book updates are available
  2.  The term "remote vehicle" is used without definition; suggest adding a definition as, in a typical proximity type usage scenario all vehicles involved can be considered to be "remote". Presumably the "remote vehicle" in this case is the one that is receiving the hailing  and not initiating it?
  3.  For the new S-Band material, it appears that there is a limited set of channels and frequencies (see table 5-1).  Has this been checked against plausible lunar comm scenarios re number of orbiters and "remote vehicles" to ensure there will not be disruptive hailing "conjunction" as well as exhausting the available "working channel" frequencies?

SIS-AD
APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY
SLS-DAD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
1) Page 5-3 ;  Paragraph 5.1 "General":
 "described" instead "forseen" could be used in the following sentence: Uses of the S-Band Proximity-1 standard outside the lunar environment are not foreseen by this specification.
 2) Page 5-15;  Table 5-1:
For column 2: "Prox-1 S-Band Forward Channel (MHz)", each channel frequency may have the same number of digits after the coma (for instance 6 digits)
3) Page A-2   paragraph A1.3:
Replace "noncompliance" by "non compliance"

MOIMS-AD
APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY
SEA-AD
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
Table 4-1 has 8 channels, but it's not clear what frequencies should be used for channels 4-7 - The table gives the range, but the doc gives no explicit guidance. I would think that it should have a statement like "frequency for channel 4 may be assigned at the convenience of the operator in the specified range, and should be registered with SANA" or some similar statement.
SOIS-AD
DISAPPROVE WITH COMMENT (state detailed conditions for disapproval)
Please see the comments in the attached document. Please also see the comments in the other assoicated proximity link documents which were polled together with this document.

https://spacecomm.sharepoint.com/sites/FM/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/FM/Lists/CESGPollResultsNew/Attachments/96/211x1b5 - Prox Phy Layer.docx&action=default&mobileredirect=true<https://spacecomm.sharepoint.com/sites/FM/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/FM/Lists/CESGPollResultsNew/Attachments/96/211x1b5%20-%20Prox%20Phy%20Layer.docx&action=default&mobileredirect=true>
Total Respondents: 7
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Disapproved
Proposed Secretariat Action: Inform the Working Group

If you have any questions or need support, please contact CCSDS Tech Support at
techsupport at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:techsupport at mailman.ccsds.org>.
Thanks,
CCSDS Tech Support

________________________________

The preceding message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2512, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential, protected by attorney-client or other privilege, or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and destroy the original message and all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-slp/attachments/20260127/afefad17/attachment-0001.htm>