[SOIS-WIR] [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE

[Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int]

Dear Kevin,

For the benefit of those in copy within this exchange, I have just 
provided a positive response to your e-mail on the remaining ESA RIDs and 
its proposed disposition.

Kind regards,

Ignacio
 

Ignacio Aguilar Sánchez
Communication Systems Engineer
Electrical Engineering Department

European Space Research and Technology Centre
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Tel. (31) 71 565 5695
Fax (31) 71 565 5418
Email: ignacio.aguilar.sanchez at esa.int
www.esa.int



From:   "Kevin K Gifford" <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
To:     "Issler Jean-Luc" <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>, 
"sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org" <sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
"Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int" <Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>
Cc:     "peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
"d.gratton at sympatico.ca" <d.gratton at sympatico.ca>, "Girard, Ralph 
(ASC/CSA)" <ralph.girard at canada.ca>, "Ray Wagner" 
<raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>, "Kevin K Gifford" 
<kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Date:   21/07/2021 18:36
Subject:        Re: [SOIS-WIR] [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on 
the CWE



Dear Jean-Luc - 

There is one final RID from ESA's Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez that the 
SOIS-WIR WG is awaiting confirmation from ESA/Ignacio that the RID has 
been resolved.

As an FYI, the ESA RID regards updating the SOIS-WIR Green Book with 
"Table 1-1: Data Rates and Ranges" from CCSDS-883-0-R-0.

@Ignacio: Can you please respond as to whether the ESA RID has been 
dispositioned to ESA's satisfaction?

Thanks.

Kevin

From: SOIS-WIR <sois-wir-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Issler 
Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 10:04 AM
To: sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>; Kevin K 
Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Cc: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; 
d.gratton at sympatico.ca <d.gratton at sympatico.ca>; Girard, Ralph (ASC/CSA) 
<ralph.girard at canada.ca>
Subject: Re: [SOIS-WIR] [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE 
 
Dear Kevin, dear all,
 
I hope that you are all going well.
 
May I know if after your agreement Kevin hereafter for our red book 
(version V2bis), and CNES confirmed agreement bellow, decision has 
effectively been made by our WG to  submit the 883 red book to CESG review 
? 
 
Have a nice day and a nice summer continuation
 
VBR
 
Jean-Luc
 
 
De : Issler Jean-Luc 
Envoyé : samedi 10 juillet 2021 16:29
À : 'Kevin K Gifford' <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>; 
'Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de' <Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>; 
'sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org' <sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>; 
'chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov' <chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>; 'Ray 
Wagner' <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; 'Stephen Braham' 
<stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; 'Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA)' 
<brian.cascarano at canada.ca>; 'Shames, Peter M (US 312B)' 
<peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; 'Jonathan Wilmot' 
<jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc : 'Ni, David (JSC-EV)[Jacobs Technology, Inc.]' <david.ni-1 at nasa.gov>; 
'Girard, Ralph (ASC/CSA)' <ralph.girard at canada.ca>; 
'd.gratton at sympatico.ca' <d.gratton at sympatico.ca>
Objet : RE: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Dear Kevin, dear all,
 
Thank you so much to have accepted CNES-V2bis proposed updates, and a 
great thank also to DLR, CSA, NASA for your benevolence vis a vis RA in 
the SZM.
 
I fully agree that we submit the red book as such for CESG review, thanks 
to you Kevin.
 
Have a nice week-end and a nice summer
 
VBR
 
Jean-Luc
 
 
 
De : Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Envoyé : vendredi 9 juillet 2021 19:06
À : Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de; 
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov; Ray Wagner <
raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; Stephen Braham <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; 
Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA) <brian.cascarano at canada.ca>; Shames, Peter M 
(US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; Jonathan Wilmot <
jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc : Ni, David (JSC-EV)[Jacobs Technology, Inc.] <david.ni-1 at nasa.gov>; 
Girard, Ralph (ASC/CSA) <ralph.girard at canada.ca>; d.gratton at sympatico.ca; 
Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Objet : Re: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Dear Jean-Luc - 
 
I believe there may have been some misunderstanding between CNES-V2 and 
CNES-V3 versions and I apologize for any associated confusion.
 
The bottom line is that your latest version, CNES-V2bis, is acceptable.
 
Sincere thanks to CNES and especially to you, Jean-Luc, for your 
significant effort and willingness to work to resolve the RIDs.
 
I propose that the SOIS-WIR WG considers the CNES RIDs resolved for 
CCSDS-883-0-R-0 and that as SOIS-WIR WG Chair I forward the document for 
CESG review.
 
Jean-Luc: Do you concur to the above proposal on the behalf of CNES?
 
Thanks again.
 
Kevin

From: Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 10:04 AM
To: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de <
Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>; sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov <
chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>; Ray Wagner <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; 
Stephen Braham <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA) <
brian.cascarano at canada.ca>; Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; Jonathan Wilmot <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc: Ni, David (JSC-EV)[Jacobs Technology, Inc.] <david.ni-1 at nasa.gov>; 
Girard, Ralph (ASC/CSA) <ralph.girard at canada.ca>; d.gratton at sympatico.ca <
d.gratton at sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE 

 
Dear Kevin, dear all,
 
Thank you for your update Kevin. The last proposal from CNES was “version 
3” and not “version 2” (incomplete). “Version 3” is also on CWE.
 
I am sorry that there is no consensus from CNES side with your current 
proposal, since the main issue, the biggest threat to radio astronomy in 
the Shielded Zone of the Moon, is not solved by this proposal. This 
current proposal removed (from “version 3”) the normative paragraph 
proposed by CNES to protect the 2483.5-2500 MHz com +nav SFCG band from 
Wifi non-SFCG wireless transmissions in 2480-2500 MHz (and to protect the 
related SFCG lower guard band: 2480-2483.5 MHz). Our arguments (also 
reminded bellow in yellow regarding Wifi when we proposed “version 3”) for 
this are moreless the same as the ones in my attached E-mail related to 
3GPP, to protect the said 2483.5-2500 MHz SFCG com+nav band and its 
related upper guard band (for which not any normative numerical value has 
been now defined following Peter’s remark, but here we have to care a 
little more about what SFCG has defined for Wifi on the lunar surface).
 
The WG converged on this for 3GPP, and CNES is gratefull to the rest of 
the Wireless WG for that, but we expect a symetric convergence for Wifi, 
in order to avoid a sole convergence for 3GPP. Such a sole convergence for 
3GPP would be  moreless useless to protect Radio Astronomy in the SZM, 
without convergence for Wifi.
 
As a reminder, none of the about 10 terrestrial wireless bands related to 
the 883 book are among the SFCG lunar band, excepted moreless in the the 
case of Wifi 2.4-2.5 GHz, since the lunar SFCG wireless 2.4 GHz band is 
2.400-2.480 GHz. But even in that case, NASA and CSA are continuing to act 
as if they are willing to not fully protect the 2480-2500 MHz from Wifi on 
the lunar surface, even if this is threatening a lot RA on the SZM 
actually.
 
CNES desagrees CCSDS having a such precedance in validating such a threat 
in one of its standards.
 
If needed, I could organise a teleconference with the Wireless WG and the 
Radio Astronomy high level representatives relying on CNES to care about 
protection of RA continuum observations from the SZM ? For CNES and these 
RA representatives, it is obvioulsy much more important to recommand in 
the red book to choose  Wi-Fi Direct® Soft AP (peer-to-peer) solutions 
providing ability to restrict channels on a fine-scale level (since these 
solutions exist in the terrestrial market, even if they are not the 
majority), rather than letting the possibility in the 883 standard to 
overlap the 2483.5-2500 MHz SFCG band, and its guard bands, wiping then 
out all the possibilities to do proper Radio Astronomy continuum 
observations (impossible from Earth) from the Shielded Zone of the Moon, 
for the reasons already explained several times (for instance in the 
attached E-mail) 
 
CNES therefore proposes a new version of the red book (version 2bis), that 
I uploaded in CWE, with the normative RA protecting paragraph for the case 
of Wifi. Due to the potential interpretation of a lack of consideration 
for SFCG in the last CSA/NASA proposal, we also propose a slight update of 
the overview paragraph in chapter 3 to better take into accound SFCG. We 
propose also correction of some typos (including in the 3GPP normative 
paragraph protecting the SFCG com+nav 2483.5-2500 MHz band), and I 
highlighted in yellow ref (42) at the begining of the red book. An extract 
of this new version is attached here. 
 
Thank you in advance to all, and in particular NASA and CSA for their 
benevolence vis a vis Radio Astronomy in the Shielded Zone of the Moon.
 
Very best regards; have a nice day and a good week-end.
 
Jean-Luc 
 
De : Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Envoyé : mardi 6 juillet 2021 17:16
À : Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de; 
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov; Ray Wagner <
raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; Stephen Braham <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; 
Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA) <brian.cascarano at canada.ca>; Shames, Peter M 
(US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; Jonathan Wilmot <
jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc : Ni, David (JSC-EV)[Jacobs Technology, Inc.] <david.ni-1 at nasa.gov>; 
Girard, Ralph (ASC/CSA) <ralph.girard at canada.ca>; d.gratton at sympatico.ca; 
Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Objet : Re: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Dear Jean-Luc -
 
I have reviewed the proposed updates of 30-Jun-2021 (the most recent 
updates) with NASA and CSA SOIS-WIR WG representatives. 
 
NASA and CSA accept the CNES proposal and the updated document (filename: 
"v0.10.17.05.13 883x0r0_CESG_Approval CNES+ESA+NASA RIDs--CNES 
review+KKG+Clean+CNES-V2.doc") is on the CWE at: 
 
    
https://cwe.ccsds.org/sois/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsois%2Fdocs%2FSOIS%2DWIR%2FAAA%20Meeting%20Materials%2F2021%2FSpring%2FCCSDS%2D0%2D883%2DR%2D0%20RID%20Processing%2FCCSDS%2D883%2D0%2DR%2D0%20Document%20Repository&FolderCTID=0x0120009D2B0A68C3206447999D0442422BD332&View=%7B23F123B6%2D2C0C%2D4AF8%2D87FC%2D7DBEA74BFFFC%7D
 
Can you please give the document a final review to ensure your CNES 
updates are properly included?
 
If we are in consensus, then I will forward the document for CESG review 
and the CCSDS publication process.
 
Please let me know if any questions.
 
Thanks for all the hard work and diligence from yourself and CNES.
 
Kevin 

From: Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 12:30 PM
To: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de <
Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>; sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov <
chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>; Ray Wagner <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; 
Stephen Braham <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA) <
brian.cascarano at canada.ca>; Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; Jonathan Wilmot <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE 

 
Dear Kevin, dear all,
 
Please find here our comments.
 
Reference [42] is added in paragraph 1.8 (page 1.8). We made several times 
proposals to add this reference, but no comment was provided to this 
proposal up till now, while its mention was agreed by the WG in several 
following paragraphs of the 883 red book. In some other paragraphs, there 
is a confusion between ref [40] and ref  [42] .
 
CNES thanks all the colleagues of the Wireless WG and Peter, since 
progress are still on going, despite we still have desagreements with the 
“IEEE 802.11 channel plan” paragraph 3.2.5, as explained in the joint 
pages, and in the uploaded version (in CWE) of the red book with the 
proposed updates and the related justifications due to very important 
radio astronomy issues. 
 
Looking forward a consensus
 
Have a nice day; VBR
 
Jean-Luc
 
 
 
De : Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Envoyé : mercredi 30 juin 2021 02:42
À : Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de; 
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov; Ray Wagner <
raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; Stephen Braham <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; 
Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA) <brian.cascarano at canada.ca>; Shames, Peter M 
(US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; Jonathan Wilmot <
jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc : Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Objet : Re: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Dear Jean-Luc - 
 
It has been one week since the document has been available for CNES 
review; can we please know the status of CNES on the proposal?
 
As SOIS-WIR WG chair, I confirm that this document has been updated with 
your/CNES requested input (exactly) as communicated previously.
 
Please let the group know if CNES accepts the proposal.
 
Thanks.
 
Kevin

From: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 9:16 AM
To: Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de <
Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>; sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov <
chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>; Ray Wagner <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; 
Stephen Braham <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>
Cc: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; 
brian.cascarano at canada.ca <brian.cascarano at canada.ca>; Kevin K Gifford <
kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE 

 
Dear Jean-Luc -
 
I have posted the updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 Document of the CWE with 
your/CNES proposed text in Section 3.1 and Section 3.3.1:
 
-- I went through and accepted all agreed-to updates from NASA, ESA, CNES
 
-- All text modified over the two weeks is easily identified (it is 
worth-while to just "page at-a-glance" through Ch. 1, 2, 3 for the visual, 
I strongly suggest this high-level strategy for all)
   Yellow : All the text added for CNES RID A through RID V (Ch.1 and 
Ch.2), thanks to Jean-Luc/CNES
   Blue : This is Jean-Luc's proposed additions to Ch. 3
   Green : Stephen's note on Wi-Fi Channel Plan
 
The document (filename: v0.10.17.05.12 883x0r0_CESG_Approval CNES+ESA+NASA 
RIDs--CNES review+KKG+Clean+CNES-V2.doc) is on the CWE at:
 
    
https://cwe.ccsds.org/sois/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsois%2Fdocs%2FSOIS%2DWIR%2FAAA%20Meeting%20Materials%2F2021%2FSpring%2FCCSDS%2D0%2D883%2DR%2D0%20RID%20Processing%2FCCSDS%2D883%2D0%2DR%2D0%20Document%20Repository&FolderCTID=0x0120009D2B0A68C3206447999D0442422BD332&View=%7B23F123B6%2D2C0C%2D4AF8%2D87FC%2D7DBEA74BFFFC%7D
 
Jean-Luc's suggested text is in Section 3.1 and Section 3.3.1.
 
Stephen Braham (CSA/NASA) has proposed an Informative Note on Wi-Fi 
channel plans and impacts in Section: 3.2.5.
 
@Jean-Luc: Please review and let the group know if this version of the 
document is acceptable to CNES. 
 
Thanks to all!
 
Kevin
 

From: Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de <
Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>; sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov <
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; 
chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov <chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>; 
stephen_braham at sfu.ca <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; brian.cascarano at canada.ca <
brian.cascarano at canada.ca>
Subject: RE: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE 

 
Dear Kevin, dear all,
 
May we know what do you think about CNES proposals ?
 
Looking forward a consensus for the 883-0-R-0 Agency Review.
 
VBR
 
Jean-Luc
 
 
 
De : Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Envoyé : vendredi 18 juin 2021 16:01
À : Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de; 
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Cc : raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov; 
stephen_braham at sfu.ca; brian.cascarano at canada.ca; Kevin K Gifford <
kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Objet : Re: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Dear Jean-Luc - 
 
Thank you for providing the CNES proposed verbiage in an effort to come to 
a consensus regarding the 2480 MHz - 2503.5 MHz frequency band which has 
implications for DLR/ESA lunar communications LO-LS links and commercial 
lunar mission support services.
 
The NASA and CSA CCSDS-883-0-R-0 team is scheduled to meet on Monday, 
21-Jun-2021, 1500 CET, to discuss the proposal.  We should have a reply to 
you later in the day (early evening in Toulouse).
 
Thanks again for CNES continued participation in the discussions.
 
Kevin

From: Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 4:01 AM
To: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>; Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de <
Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>; sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov <
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; 
chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov <chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>; 
stephen_braham at sfu.ca <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; brian.cascarano at canada.ca <
brian.cascarano at canada.ca>
Subject: RE: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE 

 
Dear Martin, dear Kevin, dear all,
 
Please find here 1) some comments to continue to look for better 
understanding of CNES proposals, and then 2) comments to your proposal 
Martin, and then 3)  new proposals taking into account you proposal Kevin:
 
1)     Comment to explain CNES proposals:
 
Thank you very much Martin for expressing DLR support to respecting ITU RR 
in the Shielded Zone of the Moon. CNES think the 883 book is already well 
oriented in that respect. The specific issue related to the protection 
needed for the SFCG 2483.5-2500 MHz band is a different but specific issue 
:
 
Overlapping this 2483.5-2500 MHz critical band is compatible with RR in 
the Shielded Zone of the Moon, but if this band is overlapped by a 
wireless band, it could not anymore be used for PNT, and L-band PNT (which 
is the worst case scenario to “kill” Radio Astronomy continuum observation 
on the Shielded Zone of the Moon) should be the remaining scenario. This 
would be unacceptable for CNES, and that is why the following shall be a 
normative statement to have a consensus, to protect Radio Astronomy in the 
SZM from Adopters which could be tempted by overlapping the 2483.5-2500 
MHz critical band (as a reminder, RFM/SLR already officially mentioned 
this to SOIS Wireless WG in commenting the draft 883 red book the need to 
troncate the 2496-2620 MHz 3GPP band to protect the SFCG 2483.5-2500 MHz 
band, via a liaison statement):
 
Mandatorily normative statement in chapter 3  (revised version):
 
In any case, radiated volontary emissions (in allocated channels) and 
unvolontary emissions (from corresponding spurious) made by RF wireless 
transmitting devices of all types in the lunar or martian environment, 
which would  cause frequency overlaps with the lunar and martian 
communication orbit to surface bands of (1) 2483.5-2500 MHz [33], [40]; or 
(2) a 3.5 MHz upper guard band between 2500 MHz and 2503.5 MHz; or (3)  as 
well as the 3.5 MHz lower guard band between 2480 MHz and 2483.5 MHz [33], 
[40], shall not be permitted.
 
The related SFCG  lower guard band [33], [40] protecting this orbit to 
surface band shall not be overlaped. The Adopter should also define an 
upper guard band to protect this orbit to surface band.
 
 
Nota Bene: CNES could accept the statement to be non normative with 3.5 
MHz guard bands, if NASA and CSA write an E-mail to CNES saying that NASA 
and CSA will not overlap the 2480-2503.5 MHz lunar and martian SFCG band 
with lunar wireless free space links, and will not promote such overlaping 
by third operators. Then, we would be more confident the CCSDS 883 red 
book would not create an important threat for Radio Astronomy on the 
Shielded Zone of the Moon, if this normative statement is not mentioned.
 
 
[40] Frequency assignment guidelines for communications in the Mars region
. Space Frequency Coordination Group. Recommendation SFCG 22-1R3. 
Reference [40] will become SFCG 22-1R4 when this SFCG Recommendation is 
revised.
 
The agreed requirement which shall be added to section 3 state that:
 
"use of any frequency band" shall be verified liaising with RFM WG before 
selecting any of non-SFCG wireless frequency band with a NOTE remarking 
that "This recommended standard does not provide normative guidance in the 
frequency values of the permited bands to be used  in addition to 
applicable SFCG bands by the space systems using the wireless terrestrial 
standards covered in this book" 
 
 
Nota Bene about what this requirement implies: “in addition to applicable 
SFCG bands” makes (for CNES) possible the normative statement above 
related to the 2483.5-2500 MHz band, which is the only SFCG band 
potentially overlapped by one of the numerous “non-SFCG compatible” 
wireless standards of the red book, moreover by severely threatening Radio 
Astronomy on the Shielded Zone of the Moon. Due to this specific 
uniqueness, in due to the mentioned threat, the said normative statement 
above in yellow related to the SFCG 2483.5-2500 MHz band is mandatory for 
CNES, and shall be separated in a specific paragraph.
 
Comments on this issue highlighted several times would be appeciated
 
2)     comments to your proposal Martin
 
We agree to assemble the different normative paragraphs as you propose, 
Martin, with one exception:
 
Exception: The paragraph above in yellow on the 2483.5-2500 MHz band, 
which is a very specific issue excluded by “in addition to applicable SFCG 
bands”, have to be excluded from the assembling, as justified above and 
hereafter.
 
Other comments in your text:
 
This recommended standard does not provide any normative guidance in the 
frequency values of the permitted bands in addition to applicable SFCG 
bands by the space systems using the wireless terrestrial standards 
covered in this book. Consequently, the following implications for the 
frequency selection are to be followed:
The frequency band choices for lunar or martian surface wireless 
transmissions could be impacted by ITU REC [38] and by the Radio 
Regulation [39] applicable in the Shielded Zone of the Moon (SZM). 
Therefore, Adopters must ensure compatibility with ITU Radio Regulations.
èOK
The "use of any frequency band" shall be verified liaising with RFM WG 
before selecting any of non-SFCG wireless frequency band.
è OK
Special attention shall be given to the 2483.5-2500 MHz band, which is the 
only SFCG band potentially overlapped by one of the numerous “non-SFCG 
compatible” wireless standards of the red book (see informational note in 
section … for more detail).
è NOT OK: shall be separate due to the very specific and unique issue as 
justified above, and shall be normative ( not an informational note which 
would not protect Radio Astronomy in the SZM from the heavy threat 
mentioned )
Remark: moreover, the proposed text here highlight that most of the 
wireless standards of the red book are not SFCG-compatible: this is true, 
I agree this to be mentioned  elsewere (non normative note; not in this 
paragraph) in the red book
Space Agencies must ensure clearance for an SFCG Waiver when the chosen 
frequency band is not recommended in [33] or in [40].
è OK
A Frequency Usage Verification Procedure needs to be followed as it is 
defined by the responsible bodies, that can be SLS RLM WG.
è OK
 
 
3)     new proposals taking into account you proposal Kevin:
 
To put at the end of paragraph 3.1 (Overview) one of the 2 version of the 
assembled paragraph
 
option 1:
 
This recommended standard does not provide any normative guidance in the 
frequency values of the permitted bands in addition to the applicable SFCG 
band by the space systems using the wireless terrestrial standards covered 
in this book. Consequently, the following implications for the frequency 
selection are to be followed:
1.      The frequency band choices for lunar or martian surface wireless 
transmissions could be impacted by ITU REC [38] and by the Radio 
Regulation [39] applicable in the Shielded Zone of the Moon (SZM). 
Therefore, Adopters must ensure compatibility with ITU Radio Regulations.
2.      The "use of any frequency band" shall be verified liaising with 
RFM WG before selecting any of non-SFCG wireless frequency band.
3.      Space Agencies must ensure clearance for an SFCG Waiver when the 
chosen frequency band is not recommended in [33] or in [40].
4.      A Frequency Usage Verification Procedure needs to be followed as 
it is defined by the responsible bodies, that can be SLS RLM WG.
 
option 2 :
 
This recommended standard does not provide any normative guidance in the 
frequency values of the permitted bands [in addition to the applicable 
SFCG band to protect (2483.5-2500 MHz)] by the space systems using the 
wireless terrestrial standards covered in this book. Consequently, the 
following implications for the frequency selection are to be followed:
1.      The frequency band choices for lunar or martian surface wireless 
transmissions could be impacted by ITU REC [38] and by the Radio 
Regulation [39] applicable in the Shielded Zone of the Moon (SZM). 
Therefore, Adopters must ensure compatibility with ITU Radio Regulations.
2.      The "use of any frequency band" shall be verified liaising with 
RFM WG before selecting any of non-SFCG wireless frequency band.
3.      Space Agencies must ensure clearance for an SFCG Waiver when the 
chosen frequency band is not recommended in [33] or in [40].
4.      A Frequency Usage Verification Procedure needs to be followed as 
it is defined by the responsible bodies, that can be SLS RLM WG.
 
In addition, the 3 partially redoundant paragraphs on this in chapter 3 
are proposed to be removed.
 
The more important issue to reach consensus hopefully:
 
Mandatorily normative statement in chapter 3 : in paragraph 3.3.1
 
In any case, radiated volontary emissions (in allocated channels) and 
unvolontary emissions (from corresponding spurious) made by RF wireless 
transmitting devices of all types in the lunar or martian environment, 
which would  cause frequency overlaps with the lunar and martian 
communication orbit to surface bands of 2483.5-2500 MHz [33], [40] shall 
not be permitted. The related SFCG  lower guard band [33], [40] protecting 
this orbit to surface band shall not be overlaped. The Adopter should also 
define an upper guard band to protect this orbit to surface band.
 
 
For clarity, I updated the red book on CWE with these proposals, and I 
joint the corresponding extract of chapter 3 with all the proposed 
updates.
 
Looking forward a consensus, which imply an agreement on real protection 
of Radio Astronomy in the SZM by normatively not having any ambiguity on 
avoiding the overlapping of 2483.5-2500 MHz SFCG orbit to surface band in 
the CCSDS 883 bleu book.
 
VBR
 
Jean-Luc
 
De : Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Envoyé : jeudi 17 juin 2021 16:13
À : Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de; Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; 
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Cc : raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov; 
stephen_braham at sfu.ca; brian.cascarano at canada.ca
Objet : Re: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Dear Martin, Dear All - 
 
@Martin: Thank you for the suggested input. 
 
As SOIS-WIR WG Chair, I would support Martin's proposal and I believe that 
NASA would support this proposal as well with the (Martin's) proposed text 
up front in Section 3.1.
 
@Jean-Luc: Can CNES accept Martin's proposal?
 
Thanks to all for the hard work and professionalism displayed dealing with 
this important concern.
 
Kevin

From: Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de <Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 7:52 AM
To: Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; Kevin K Gifford <
kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>; sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov <
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; 
chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov <chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>; 
stephen_braham at sfu.ca <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; brian.cascarano at canada.ca <
brian.cascarano at canada.ca>
Subject: AW: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE 

 
Dear all,
 
I can confirm and support the CNES statement regarding the ITU Regulation 
concerning the Shielded side of the moon, since this is also the main 
concern by the German radio astronomers as from a statement made by our 
SFCG representative Mr. Ewald. So, it should be clarified “that using LTE 
on the moon is not violating the RR and this usage is compatible with 
existing regulation” as Mr. Ewald stated regarding this specific issue.
 
I am not sure if this is possible, but I would suggest to compress all 
relevant information to one statement, as all of them are connected to 
each other, and the reader (the later adaptor/ system architect) directly 
knows the conditions under which he needs  select the frequency band, who 
is responsible for what and which actions items he needs to work through. 
It is more clear to the reader and the most important information is at 
one place.  It would be maybe something like this:
 
This recommended standard does not provide any normative guidance in the 
frequency values of the permitted bands in addition to applicable SFCG 
bands by the space systems using the wireless terrestrial standards 
covered in this book. Consequently, the following implications for the 
frequency selection are to be followed:
1.      The frequency band choices for lunar or martian surface wireless 
transmissions could be impacted by ITU REC [38] and by the Radio 
Regulation [39] applicable in the Shielded Zone of the Moon (SZM). 
Therefore, Adopters must ensure compatibility with ITU Radio Regulations.
2.      The "use of any frequency band" shall be verified liaising with 
RFM WG before selecting any of non-SFCG wireless frequency band.
3.      Special attention shall be given to the 2483.5-2500 MHz band, 
which is the only SFCG band potentially overlapped by one of the numerous 
“non-SFCG compatible” wireless standards of the red book (see 
informational note in section … for more detail).
4.      Space Agencies must ensure clearance for an SFCG Waiver when the 
chosen frequency band is not recommended in [33] or in [40].
5.      A Frequency Usage Verification Procedure needs to be followed as 
it is defined by the responsible bodies, that can be SLS RLM WG.
 
 
Best regards
 
Martin
 
 
 
Von: Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr> 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2021 19:25
An: Drobczyk, Martin <Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>; kevin.gifford at colorado.edu; 
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Cc: raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov; 
stephen_braham at sfu.ca; brian.cascarano at canada.ca
Betreff: RE: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Dear Kevin, dear all,
 
Please find here the attached CNES answers and proposals, looking forward 
your understanding of CNES and Radio Astronomers high level concerns, and 
a consensus.
 
Have a nice day; VBR
 
Jean-Luc
 
De : Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de <Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de> 
Envoyé : mercredi 16 juin 2021 07:50
À : kevin.gifford at colorado.edu; Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; 
sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Cc : raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov; chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov; 
stephen_braham at sfu.ca; brian.cascarano at canada.ca
Objet : AW: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Hi all,
 
number 1 is a very important statement/requirement (maybe the most 
important) and already builds the framework for number 3 which can be from 
my point of view an informational note, as long as number 1 is a 
requirement. Because the statement in number 1 delegates the frequency 
selection and verification to the bodies and authorized representatives 
responsible for it. And it clearly and implicitly states, that this book 
recommends the wireless terrestrial standards but without any guarantee 
and authority to use them in the terrestrial bands, but instead be 
(always) compliant with any SFCG and SLS RFM decisions, clauses or 
normative statements regarding frequency selection.
 
For this reason, I would also agree with Kevin that number 2 is out of the 
scope of this document as it is already enclosed in the statement of 
number 1 “.. verified liaising with RFM WG..”, and the verification 
process needs to be established there.
 
Best regards
 
Martin
 
 
Von: Kevin K Gifford <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu> 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Juni 2021 18:07
An: Issler Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>; sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org; 
Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Ray Wagner <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>; Lansdowne, Chatwin (JSC-EV811) 
<chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov>; Stephen Braham <stephen_braham at sfu.ca>; 
Cascarano, Brian (ASC/CSA) <brian.cascarano at canada.ca>; Kevin K Gifford <
kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>; Drobczyk, Martin <Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de>
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
[ + Peter Shames ]
 
Dear Jean-Luc - 
 
Thank you for your updated proposal.  I believe we are getting close to a 
resolution and again am very thankful to be addressing this issue with 
yourself and CNES.
 
Thanks also for acknowledging that CNES is aware of the directions 
provided by Peter Shames (CESG) to the SOIS-WIR WG on this issue.  Per 
Peter Shames' instructions, the CCSDS-883-0-R-0 document:
-- Shall state normatively that all spectrum coordination must go through 
the SLS-RFM and the SFCG
-- Cannot make any normative statements regarding frequency assignments
 
The SOIS-WIR counter proposal is as follows:
 
----- 1 -------
[Accept] 
A requirement shall be added to section 3 to state that: "use of / 
allocation of frequencies" shall be verified liaising with RFM WG before 
selecting any of non-SFCG wireless frequency band with a NOTE remarking 
that "This recommended standard does not provide normative guidance in the 
frequency values of the permitted bands to be used by the wireless 
terrestrial standards in addition to applicable SFCG bands"
 
 
----- 2 -------
[Reject]
The added requirement shall be reflected in the PICS Annex by a relevant 
"Frequency Usage Verification Procedure" to be added to the existing 
Network Connectivity Verification Procedure, Network Performance 
Verification Procedure, QoS Verification Procedure.
 
Rationale: The CCSDS Yellow Book is required for interoperability 
conformance verifications.  A "SLS-RFM or SFCG" Frequency Verification 
Procedure is out of scope for CCDSD-883-0-R-0; SOIS-WIR firmly believes 
this procedure is in purview of SLS-RFM.
 
 
----- 3 -------
For the CNES proposed text below the SOIS-WIR WG will accept this text as 
an Informational Note but not as a Normative statement:
 
In any case, radiated volontary emissions (in allocated channels) and 
unvolontary emissions (from corresponding spurious) made by RF wireless 
transmitting devices of all types in the lunar or martian environment, 
which would  cause frequency overlaps with the lunar and martian 
communication orbit to surface bands of (1) 2483.5-2500 MHz [33], [40]; or 
(2) a 3.5 MHz upper guard band between 2500 MHz and 2503.5 MHz; or (3)  as 
well as the 3.5 MHz lower guard band between 2480 MHz and 2483.5 MHz [33], 
[40], shall not be permitted.
 
The related SFCG  lower guard band [33], [40] protecting this lunar and 
martian communication orbit to surface band shall not be overlaped. SFCG 
will define the related upper guard band [33], [40] after the publication 
of this Bleu Book. This upper guard band, when defined, shall not be 
overlaped. By Waiting the SFCG definition of this upper guard band, the 
Adopter should define this upper guard band by using the “Frequency Usage 
Verification Procedure” of the PICS Annex.
 
[40] Frequency assignment guidelines for communications in the Mars region
. Space Frequency Coordination Group. Recommendation SFCG 22-1R3. 
Reference [40] will become SFCG 22-1R4 when this SFCG Recommendation will 
be edited.
 
Rationale: Per CESG instructions, no normative statements regarding 
spectrum bands, channels or guard bands are to be allowed.. in 
CCSDS-883-0-R-0.
 
The SOIS-WIR WG will publicize/discuss the above proposal with Peter 
Shames to ensure that our Working Groupo is properly following CESG 
expectations.
 
Jean-Luc: Would CNES accept the above proposal?
 
Thanks.
 
Kevin
 

From: SOIS-WIR <sois-wir-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Issler 
Jean-Luc <Jean-Luc.Issler at cnes.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 7:04 AM
To: sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org <sois-wir at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [SOIS-WIR] TR: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 
on the CWE 
 
Dear all,
 
Please find here a wording for an updated proposal : modifications of the 
first paragraph are tracked, and a second paragraph has been added in 
order to not write any guard band bandwidth value (as proposed by Mr Shame 
in his E-mail bellow), and to not preclude about future SFCG decisions 
while protecting Radio Astronomy, this last point beeing as you know a 
very important challenge for CNES and the Radio Astronomers, very 
concerned about this guard band issue. 
 
In any case, radiated volontary emissions (in allocated channels) and 
unvolontary emissions (from corresponding spurious) made by RF wireless 
transmitting devices of all types in the lunar or martian environment, 
which would  cause frequency overlaps with the lunar and martian 
communication orbit to surface bands of (1) 2483.5-2500 MHz [33], [40]; or 
(2) a 3.5 MHz upper guard band between 2500 MHz and 2503.5 MHz; or (3)  as 
well as the 3.5 MHz lower guard band between 2480 MHz and 2483.5 MHz [33], 
[40], shall not be permitted.
 
The related SFCG  lower guard band [33], [40] protecting this lunar and 
martian communication orbit to surface band shall not be overlaped. SFCG 
will define the related upper guard band [33], [40] after the publication 
of this Bleu Book. This upper guard band, when defined, shall not be 
overlaped. By Waiting the SFCG definition of this upper guard band, the 
Adopter should define this upper guard band by using the “Frequency Usage 
Verification Procedure” of the PICS Annex.
 
[40] Frequency assignment guidelines for communications in the Mars region
. Space Frequency Coordination Group. Recommendation SFCG 22-1R3. 
Reference [40] will become SFCG 22-1R4 when this SFCG Recommendation will 
be edited.
 
What do you think please ?
 
What do you think about the update proposal of the note in blue bellow 
please ?
 
Following Mr Shame’s message bellow, and some discussions that occur, it 
is not clear enougth in the 883B red book weather the wireless 
architecture standard refering to a certain number of terrestrial wireless 
standards is normative regarding the wireless standard frequencies or not. 
According to Mr Shame, the wireless frequencies shall not be normative. To 
make this ambiguity desapear, CNES proposes to add in the normative 
chapter 3 the following:
 
1)     A requirement shall be added to section 3 to state that: "use of / 
allocation of frequencies" shall be verified liaising with RFM WG before 
selecting any of non-SFCG wireless frequency band with a NOTE remarking 
that "This recommended standard does not provide normative guidance in the 
frequency values of the permited bands to be used by the wireless 
terrestrial standards in addition to applicable SFCG bands" 
 
2) The added requirement shall be reflected in the PICS Annex by a 
relevant  "Frequency Usage Verification Procedure" to be added to the 
existing Network Connectivity Verification Procedure, Network Performance 
Verification Procedure, QoS Verification Procedure.
 
What do you think about this proposal following Mr Shame’s remarks 
 
Looking forward a consensus, in order to make all the CNES RIDs to have 
disposition, and to have a normative guard band text (without any guard 
band bandwidth value as now wished) letting a chance for Radio Astronomy 
continuum observations in the Shielded Zone of the Moon.
 
VBR
 
Jean-Luc
 

From:        "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
To:        "Gian Paolo Calzolari" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, "Gilles 
Moury" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <
Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int> 
Cc:        "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>, 
"Wagner, Raymond S. (JSC-EV811)" <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>, "Kevin K 
Gifford" <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>, "Lee, Dennis K (US 332G)" <
dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Date:        09/06/21 23:58 
Subject:        Potential SLS / RFM issue 

 
Dear Gippo, Gilles, and Enrico,
 
I just had a discussion with a couple of the SOIS Wireless (WIR) WG guys, 
Gifford and Wagner.  I think that the major issues that I perceived, 
vis-à-vis handling their “near-by” link layer protocols in a fashion 
consistent with the rest of the space link protocols has been dealt with. 
In the SANA we will treat them as two separate protocols from the rest of 
the SLS standards, and we will register the identifiers assigned by their 
“home” standards organizations in their own SANA SCID registries. 
 
The reference to SANA SCID registries, of course, implies that they will 
also need to align with the Q-SCID frequency bands as well, and those are 
aligned with RFM WG and SFCG practices.  I do not believe that any of you 
have an issue with any of this. 
 
The WG has experienced some push back, from both NASA and CNES members, 
regarding the inclusion of statements about frequency bands or frequency 
allocations in any bands.  I have advised the SOIS WIR to not provide any 
sort of normative guidance in this matter and to defer to the RFM WG for 
all questions regarding use of / allocation of frequencies.  This is under 
the assumption that you will, in turn, rely upon the SFCG to provide the 
formal guidance and frequency allocations in accordance with established 
international practices and regulations.
 
I am writing now just to ascertain that you all concur.  I believe that 
the SOIS WIR needs to  just acknowledge this situation and, for questions 
about frequency allocations, to guide the users of these standards to the 
RFM WG and the SFCG.
 
Do you agree?
 
Thanks, Peter
 
 
De : Issler Jean-Luc 
Envoyé : mardi 8 juin 2021 19:15
À : 'Kevin K Gifford' <kevin.gifford at colorado.edu>
Cc : chatwin.lansdowne-1 at nasa.gov; brian.cascarano at canada.ca; 
david.ni-1 at nasa.gov; Andre.Luebken at dlr.de; warp <warp at polylab.sfu.ca>; 
Martin.Drobczyk at dlr.de; Ray Wagner <raymond.s.wagner at nasa.gov>
Objet : RE: AW: AW: AW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Updated CCSDS-883-0-R-0 on the CWE
 
Dear all, and thank you Stephen, Martin and Kevin for your updates
 
Please find here CNES proposal
 
In any case, radiated volontary emissions (in allocated channels) and 
unvolontary emissions (from corresponding spurious) made by RF wireless 
transmitting devices of all types in the lunar or martian environment, 
which would  cause frequency overlaps with the lunar and martian 
communication orbit to surface bands of (1) 2483.5-2500 MHz [33], [40]; or 
(2) a 3.5 MHz upper guard band between 2500 MHz and 2503.5 MHz; or (3)  as 
well as the 3.5 MHz lower guard band between 2480 MHz and 2483.5 MHz [33], 
[40], shall not be permitted.
 
Ref [40] is:
 
[40] Frequency assignment guidelines for communications in the Mars region
. Space Frequency Coordination Group. Recommendation SFCG 22-1R3.
 
As already explained, for CNES, the 3GPP terrestrial standard in the 
2496-2620 MHz band (not SFCG) cannot be normative (with the discussed band 
restriction), if the discussed bands to protect (orbit to surface band and 
its guard bands) are not normatively protected. This text shall therefore 
effectively be out of a NOTE. 
 
We propose this text above to be just before the NOTEs of paragraph 3.1.1 
GENERAL ( Alternatively, this text above could be just before the NOTE of 
paragraph 3.1 OVERVIEW )
 
 
Since the EARFCN paragraph is proposed to be not kept, the related 
references [40] and [41] on E UTRA appearing in this paragraph are 
proposed to be removed, and the martian SFCG doc would have reference 
[40].
 
We also propose to update the last NOTE of paragraph 3.1.1 as follows:
 
The frequency band choices for lunar or martian surface wireless 
transmissions could be impacted by ITU REC [38] and by the Radio 
Regulation [39] applicable in the Shielded Zone of the Moon (SZM).  
Adopters must also ensure compatibility with ITU Radio Regulations,  and 
Space Agencies must ensure clearance for an SFCG Waiver when the chosen 
frequency band is not recommended in [33] or in [40].
 
I uploaded on CWE a new version of the red book with all the proposed 
updates (without the ones in green that I realized after to be needed).
 
It is mandatory for CNES to have consensus on the proposals in this E-mail 
before our WG to submit to SESG a resolution for publication of 883-0-R-0 
: looking forward a consensus.
 
Have a nice day/evening  VBR
 
Jean-Luc
 
 
 
 
 



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/sois-wir/attachments/20210723/bbb860c0/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1155 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sois-wir/attachments/20210723/bbb860c0/attachment-0001.gif>