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:
Rene Verhage <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SAC-SWG-ENUM <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Feb 2018 03:22:34 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2