[Css-csts] URGENT: Discrepancy in the SFW regarding the NOTIFY invocation

[Sylvain Gully]

Hello Wolfgang,

I have no problem with that. Otherwise this information would be 
duplicated if I have understood. So I accord to remove this requirement 
from the SFW.

Best Regards,
Sylvain

Am 27.02.2015 um 10:30 schrieb Wolfgang Hell:
> Dear CSTS colleagues,
>
> While trying to close all RIDs and other comments regarding the SFW, 
> John and I detected a discrepancy between some requirements in the 
> main part of the SFW document and the NOTIFY invocation type 
> specification in annex E. The SFW contained in some place requirements 
> postulating that a notification shall report the service that 
> triggered the reported event. Taking a look at the type specification, 
> it turns out that this information cannot be conveyed except if one 
> would introduce a related parameter either by changing the invocation 
> type or by means of extension. However, in general the reporting of 
> the service is not needed as the user can be safely assumed to know 
> which service is being used when the notification comes in. There 
> might be the case that a service has to send notifications that 
> actually triggered due to other services being used in which case one 
> would need the extra parameter identifying the service with which the 
> notification is associated. It turns out that not even the MD CSTS has 
> such need. Therefore John and I favor the following approach:
>
> - Any requirement postulating that the service triggering an event is 
> reported in the notification are removed from the SFW.
> - The type specifications associated with the NOTIFY invocation are 
> left alone, i.e. no additional parameter is introduced.
> - Should at some point in the future the need arise to accommodate an 
> additional parameter reporting the service triggering the event, this 
> can be achieved by means of extension.
>
> Given that we are proposing to remove an originally specified 
> capability, we are seeking the WG consent on this point. A reply at 
> your earliest convenience will be appreciated since John and I are 
> trying to wrap up the SFW asap.
>
> Best regards,
> Wolfgang
>
> _______________________________________________
> Css-csts mailing list
> Css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts
>