Print

Print


Andy, Roger,

Thanks for the great feedback. I think I agree with Roger regarding adding another new term to the definitions. I am not sure this necessarily clarifies things. But I do understand your point, Andy, and I can definitely see how it might cause confusion. I do think that explicitly using the full service call name clarifies things. My only worry with this approach is that we use the term "update" throughout the GRIM. Do we therefore need to replace this will the full service name in every instance?

Roger, in regards to the "at a minimum" text, that was actually deliberate. Based on the discussion during the meeting Thursday, it seemed that the group did not want to limit federates by an overly restrictive requirement, especially since we know there are RPR 2d17 federates out there which are updating these attributes with every update. Perhaps instead of making the requirement more restrictive we could simply be stronger in discouraging such an implementation. For instance, we could update the last sentence in section 7.2 to say:

Publishing federates may provide updates more frequently, but this is not necessary or recommended.


Aaron


To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-RPR list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PDG-RPR