[Smwg] SPDF: second WG review

[Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-LCN0)[MTI SYSTEMS, INC.]]

Hello, as discussed in today's meeting, there is an updated SPDF book ready for the 2nd working group review:
https://cwe.ccsds.org/css/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/css/docs/CSS-SM/CWE%20Private/Book%20Production/Blue/Service%20Package%20Data%20Formats/White%20Book/Drafts/ServicePackageSpecification%20902.4-w0.02.docx&action=default

The question we discussed in the meeting is:

-          Right now, we have both:

o   a servicePackageType that is OPTIONAL indicating the state machine status (which right now is just whether the package is primary/active/scheduled or an alternate)

o   within the OPTIONAL ScenarioDetails, there is an activeScenario boolean that indicates the same thing

-          If we don't have any additional state machine states that are conveyed, then the activeScenario is better placed because the distinction between scheduled vs alternative is only relevant when using scenarios, in which case ScenarioDetails (and activeScenario) is present.

-          I think the servicePackageType is only useful to retain if there are additional sub-states that it would indicate, but from what I could tell in the examples Marcin worked with the group, I wasn't sure that we had any.  Marcin had some other states like 'CREATED', etc., that I think were internal, and wouldn't be relevant to the message exchanges, if I understood correct.

So, I think the options are:

1.       Get rid of servicePackageStatus. (this did not seem to be preferred in the meeting, and there might be uses for conveying states in the future)

2.       Define other states in the enumeration for servicePackageStatus, or leave it open to take some additional TBD states (e.g. by making it an xsd:string rather than an enumeration).  (this seems slightly preferable at the moment?)

3.       Leave it alone under the assumption that there will be more states we think of later that we want the servicePackageStatus to be able to convey and that we'll add them to the enumeration at some point in the future?

Other than this, I will also update the XML schema file and post that as well.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20181120/b3f0d5b2/attachment.html>