SAC-SWG-ENUM Archives

February 2018

SAC-SWG-ENUM@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Marrou, Lance R." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SAC-SWG-ENUM <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:30:56 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
The CR is on old because the dependency is on a DIS PCR (130).  Thus, the name for UID 80 wouldn't change in time for RPR v3.  However, we can alter that if we wish.  I think it's ok because (a) as you point out the semantics don't change, and (b) it's demonstrably not in use as-is.  Should we want to do this, then perhaps a follow up on the DIS RPR PSG reflector to see if anyone would object.  I doubt anyone will, but crossing Ts and dotting Is never hurt too much.


Remember, the idea is only to deprecate UID 81 (not delete it). By deprecating, it still remains. Although it can't possibly be used anyway, even if someone did try to use and haven't told us, then they could still use it. Deprecation is really just a warning as the enumeration document doesn't include normative rules (it's not a formally balloted standard). So, the point is that simulations that somehow use UID 81 can continue to use it. We aren't repurposing it after all. It'll just be marked deprecated and those folks, once found, will be amicably berated for not piping up earlier. :-)

Lance Marrou, Leidos, [log in to unmask]
12901 Science Drive, Orlando, Florida USA 32826, o: 407.243.3710


-----Original Message-----
From: SAC-SWG-ENUM [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rene Verhage
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 3:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Designator UIDs 80 and 81 - Don't Reuse

Agreed. As there are currently no enumerators for the the UID 80, I wasn't sure if the name change was also a change in semantics. Now that it is clarified it is not, I fully agree with continuing to use UID 80 and change the name.

For RPR FOM v3 I guess it is up to the PDG (when instantiated) what we do with the name. I could imagine the attribute name would still reflect the DIS v7 field name, but for the datatype name we could use the then valid enumeration name.
RPR FOM v4 would obviously align with the DIS v8, and thus the currently discussed Designator capabilities.

What about the support for older versions of the standards in SISO-REF-010. Should the UID 81 remain as long as some standard in its most recent version still refers to it? Including the yet to be developed RPR FOM v3 through reference of DIS v7.

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

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

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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2