Back to SISO Website
SISO Discussion Forums

Help for SAC-SWG-ENUM Discussion Forum List


SAC-SWG-ENUM Discussion Forum List

SAC-SWG-ENUM Discussion Forum List


SAC-SWG-ENUM@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

SISO Discussions Home

SISO Discussions Home

SAC-SWG-ENUM Home

SAC-SWG-ENUM Home

SAC-SWG-ENUM  January 2018

SAC-SWG-ENUM January 2018

Subject:

Re: Designator UIDs 80 and 81 - Don't Reuse

From:

Rene Verhage <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SAC-SWG-ENUM <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 31 Jan 2018 06:21:33 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (18 lines)

This topic may raise a more general question: to which degree shall SISO-REF-010 support older versions of the standards (at least DIS and RPR FOM)? For when UID 80 is renamed, it may lead to confusion with DIS v6/v7 and RPR FOM v2 users. I know that SISO-REF-010 never provided any Code Name enumerators, but individual simulators/federations may have extended this enumeration. Obviously SISO-REF-010 needs not to worry about such non-standard values, but it may add to the confusion when the semantics of the enumeration is changed.
So why not just create a new UID for the "Designator System Name"? The Designator PDU v7 and v8 are incompatible anyway; I assume it will be quite hard for a gateway to translate a v8 Designator PDU to a v7 or its RPR FOM v2 equivalent. And when it comes to UID 80, this one should actually not be mapped as the semantics is different, right?

But does that mean that the UIDs 80 and 81 will be completely removed in the future from SISO-REF-010? Will SISO-REF-010 then no longer support the older DIS versions and RPR FOM? Let's assume that we'll manage to bring out the RPR FOM v3 before DIS v8. Then we are aligned for some time. But I guess it is not irrational to think that DIS v8 may be available before RPR FOM v4. Then SISO-REF-010 should still contain UID 80 (as Code Name) to support RPR FOM v3 users. Only at the time of RPR FOM v4 (aligned with DIS v8), both standards would no longer be using UID 80 as Code Name.
But even then, at which time will there be no users anymore of the older versions of DIS and RPR FOM? What could/should be the "grace period" of SISO-REF-010 for the older versions of the standards?

Hence my proposal to reuse neither UID 80 nor 81. Keep them both in SISO-REF-010. And deprecation of these UIDs actually applies to the standards, not to SISO-REF-010 itself. But if we want to deprecate them also in SISO-REF-010, then only do so when the most recent versions of all standards that refer to SISO-REF-010 no longer use these UIDs.

As for UID 81, we may want to discuss for RPR FOM v3 to already stop using it, if it is generally accepted that it should have been an unsigned integer all along. At best someone writes a PCR (for RPR FOM) for that, so it is discussed in the next RPR FOM PDG.


Rene Verhage

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search SISO Discussions

Search SISO Discussions


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Discussion Forum List

July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015

ATOM RSS1 RSS2