[Css-csts] combined default list for MD-CSTS Cyclic Report and Information Query procedures

[John Pietras]

CSTS-WG colleagues ---

In reviewing the draft MD-CSTS last week in Noordwijk, we decided to
combine the default lists for the Cyclic Report (CR) and Information
Query (IQ) procedures into a single default list (at least, that's what
I have in my notes). 

 

I honestly don't remember spending much time discussing this, and in
thinking about it further I wonder if it's a good idea. I think that the
kinds of data that are to be cyclically reported are likely to be
different enough from the kinds of data to be retrieved on special
occasion that it's worthwhile to keep two separate default lists. Put
another way, I don't see the burden of keeping a separate default list
for each class of procedure to be high enough to outweigh the potential
benefit of two different default lists. Of course, if we don't allow a
separate list for IQ, it would be easy enough to create a named list
that would essentially be the "standard" list for IQ (e.g., "defQuery").
But the user would have to enter that name in the GET every time, which
defeats the purpose of not having to name the parameters. Basically, if
there's not a separate default list for IQ, I think the default list
will almost always be used for periodically-reported parameters and will
rarely if ever be used for IQ.

 

I don't usually like to force a revisit of a decision made (at least, so
quickly after it has been made), but I feel as though I was "asleep at
the wheel" on this last week and that I should have defended it a bit
more strongly when it came up in the review. I don't want to make this a
long, drawn-out discussion, but for my benefit, can anyone state a
strong case for not allowing a separate default list for IQ, other than
it's just simpler?

 

 

Best regards,

John

 

John Pietras

GST, Inc. 

7855 Walker Drive, Suite 200

Greenbelt, MD 20770

240-542-1155

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20091106/bdc526e4/attachment.html