[Nspcsg] Mar15_CSG_wp07 GAST D Validation Table D-8B - Rev1.docx

Tue Mar 31 07:06:06 MDT 2015

Tim,

Honeywell (Joe Scheitlin) has completed our validation of the message as well. Sorry for the delay as it took longer than planned to find the tool.

1.       We concur with the error in the output from the bit scrambling noted by Kazusi Suzuki. The concluding shaded string of “78 1D 39 B5 C4 2B 69 FD 04 CA 68 81 07 9A 1E 33 C1 86 F5 F5 40 E3 1C 3F” is duplicated and should be deleted.

2.       We also agree that the value for the fill bits should be 2 rather than 1. Note that the binary representation of the fill bit needs to change from “0” to “00”.

3.       The final three characters in the D8PSK are “66 6” could not be confirmed as being correct. We believe they are a result of the power ramp-down but cannot confirm that a power ramp-down of “000 000 000” results in “66 6”.

Hope this helps.

Bruce

Bruce Johnson
Engineering Fellow
Systems Analyst - Safety Engineering

Guidance & Navigation COE
8840 Evergreen Blvd, MN51-1250
Minneapolis, MN 55433 USA
Phone +1 (763) 957-4375
Fax +1 (763) 957-3088
bruce.johnson at honeywell.com<mailto:Bruce.johnson at honeywell.com>

From: Nspcsg [mailto:nspcsg-bounces at aeronav.net] On Behalf Of Susumu Saito
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:31 AM
To: Tim Murphy
Cc: Matt Harris; nspcsg at aeronav.net<mailto:nspcsg at aeronav.net>
Subject: Re: [Nspcsg] Mar15_CSG_wp07 GAST D Validation Table D-8B - Rev1.docx

Dear Tim,

Now I have checked all the values of Table D-8B
including Message CRC, FEC, inpput/output of
bit scrambling, and D8PSK symbols.

I obtained the same values except for the two items
pointed out by Suzuki-san.

The results is summarized in the attached document.
Should we make it into a separate working paper from
yours?

Best regards,

Susumu Saito

> Dear Tim,
>
> Since Linda and Saito-san have verified the Table D-8B up to CRC field,
> I have cross checked input to / output from bit scrambling, and D8PSK modulation.
>
> As a result, I have found two disagreements with your result as shown below:
> (1) Output from bit scrambling
> A series of bits from 0x78 appeared in the second row from the bottom to
> 0x3F appeared in the last raw should be deleted.
> Looks like editorial issue.
>
> (2) Fill bits
> As length of scrambled data is 1,729 bits, number of fill bits needed should be 2,
> instead of 1.
>
> SSID              :    3 bits
> Transmission len. :   17 bits
> Training seq. FEC :    5 bits
> Msg. Block Header :   48 bits
> Msg. Block 1 (MT2):  344 bits
> Msg. Block 2 (MT3): 1312 bits
> ------------------------------
>             total : 1729 bits
>
> mod(1729,3)=1 -> needs two fill bits
>
>
> Also, I have some editorial findings; they are shown in
> the attached document using "comment function" of Microsoft Word.
>
> Regards,
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> KAZUSHI Suzuki
> NEC Corporation
> ATC/NAV SYSTEM DEPARTMENT
> RADIO APPLICATION DIVISION
> Phone : +81-42-333-1590
> e-mail: k-suzuki at hq.jp.nec.com<mailto:k-suzuki at hq.jp.nec.com>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nspcsg [mailto:nspcsg-bounces at aeronav.net] On Behalf Of Susumu
>> Saito
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:51 PM
>> To: Tim Murphy
>> Cc: Matt Harris; nspcsg at aeronav.net<mailto:nspcsg at aeronav.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Nspcsg] Mar15_CSG_wp07 GAST D Validation Table D-8B - Rev
>> 1.docx
>>
>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> I have also obtained the same CRC values in the Table D8-B of
>> WP07 of Mar15 CSG virtual meeting.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Susumu Saito
>>
>>> Dear Tim,
>>>
>>> We have verified the coding of the message and the computation of the
>> CRC. That is what we can do with the tools we have. We get the same results
>> as you did for the message including the CRC.
>>>
>>> Do we need to write a brief paper on it, or will this e-mail do?
>>>
>>> Linda
>>>
>>> From: Nspcsg [mailto:nspcsg-bounces at aeronav.net] On Behalf Of Murphy,
>> Tim
>>> Sent: 14. mars 2015 01:26
>>> To: 'nspcsg at aeronav.net'
>>> Cc: Harris, Matt
>>> Subject: [Nspcsg] Mar15_CSG_wp07 GAST D Validation Table D-8B - Rev
>> 1.docx
>>>
>>> CSG members,
>>>
>>> Attached is a revised version of WP 7 from today’s meeting.  The WP
>> has the revised version of Table D-8B with the additional change that
>> we agreed to make today, i.e. to change the GAD from “B3” to “C4”.  All
>> the CRC’s FEC’ and so forth have been recomputed.  So this should be
>> the new baseline for the validation discussed in the paper.
>>>
>>> Baraba Clark,  Can you make sure Tin gets this paper as I don’t seem
>> to have her email address anymore.
>>>
>>> Honeywell, Thales and Indranavia, .. please advise if you will be able
>> to cross check the computation as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim Murphy
>>> Senior Technical Fellow
>>> Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
>>> Electronic Systems
>>> (425) 965-6744 <-NEW!
>>> Cell (425) 280-6844
>>> Fax (425) 342-5812
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nspcsg mailing list
>>> Nspcsg at host412.hostmonster.com<mailto:Nspcsg at host412.hostmonster.com>
>>> http://host412.hostmonster.com/mailman/listinfo/nspcsg_aeronav.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nspcsg mailing list
>> Nspcsg at host412.hostmonster.com<mailto:Nspcsg at host412.hostmonster.com>
>> http://host412.hostmonster.com/mailman/listinfo/nspcsg_aeronav.net
> _______________________________________________
> Nspcsg mailing list
> Nspcsg at host412.hostmonster.com<mailto:Nspcsg at host412.hostmonster.com>
> http://host412.hostmonster.com/mailman/listinfo/nspcsg_aeronav.net
_______________________________________________
Nspcsg mailing list
Nspcsg at host412.hostmonster.com<mailto:Nspcsg at host412.hostmonster.com>
http://host412.hostmonster.com/mailman/listinfo/nspcsg_aeronav.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://host412.hostmonster.com/pipermail/nspcsg_aeronav.net/attachments/20150331/1fd8f5b6/attachment.html>