Even better. Thanks
From: Gary Ham [mailto:]
Sent: March 9, 2010 4:45 PM
To: Paulsen,Norm
[Ontario]
Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; David RR Webber (XML);
; Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL
Subject: Re:
[emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
That is not what I said!
I said that if it meets that CAP schema IT IS made available for retrieval,
but it will only be pushed to gateways if it meets THEIR respective profiles and
permission requirements.
So, one cap Message could be sent to 0 to many external gateways depending
on its content and the permission of its authors.
But even a zero gateway message that meets basic CAP schema would be
available to authorized pull entities.
Additionally a separate request capability will let authors learn the
gateway fate of otherwise acceptable messages. This is not done yet, but
is the general plan.
Gary
On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Paulsen,Norm [Ontario] wrote:
Actually I shouldn't have used the word forwarding as it
implies pushing and I too prefer polling/pulling.
So if a CAP message meets the CAP schema but not a known
profile it is not processed further and not made available. Good to
know.
All I ask is that any reporting of failure distinguishes
CAP schema failure from profile failures.
Other than that, it was just a soapbox moment that I
took.
Thanks
From: Gary Ham [mailto:]
Sent: March 9, 2010 4:24 PM
To: Paulsen,Norm
[Ontario]
Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; David RR Webber (XML); ;
Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL
Subject: Re: [emergency] HAVE Conformance
vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas
I think you misunderstand,
IPAWS-OPEN will take any valid CAP message as long as the sender is
authorized, and make it retrievable by any who are authorized to retrieve. The
retriever can then determine if the message is useful on their net or not.
But pushes are another matter. Before DM-OPEN pushes out a message it
has received for re-transport (e.g., NWEMs to the NWS, and perhaps
Canadian profile message???) it will test against whatever profile the
receiver requires, and will not process further if it does not meet the
profile. That is why pushes are a pain, and why we will have to
negotiate each push arrangement separately and have a formal agreement with
the system we push to. Pulls are a lot less of a problem for us because
the pulling system can deal with the issues.
Gary
On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Paulsen,Norm [Ontario] wrote:
Thanks
Not quite sure exactly what you mean by structure, but
it sounds like it will not accept anything that doesn't have elements with
values specific to these concerns. This contradicts the line that says takes any valid CAP
message.
However, I have no problem with IPAWS-OPEN doing
that at all. I also no problem with IPAWS-OPEN requiring
my Canadian Structure before accepting my CAP and
forwarding.
What I need to stress is that if indeed it is only open
to these "structures" then it can't be truly said to be accepting any valid CAP message. It
can though be said to be accepting of any CAP IPAWS
message (if indeed those structures are defined in
IPAWS).
Thanks
Norm
From: Gary Ham [mailto:]
Sent: March 9, 2010 3:52 PM
To: Paulsen,Norm
[Ontario]
Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; David RR Webber (XML); ;
Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL
Subject: *****SPAM***** Re: [emergency]
HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas
I cannot speak details for IPAWS specifically, because not all
aspects have been built or even designed, but I can give some general
direction. IPAWS-OPEN (yep 3.0 will be called IPAWS-OPEN) is planned to have
a single CAP input interface that takes any valid CAP message.
Depending on content (does it have the appropriate CMAS structures,
EAS structures, NWEM structures, etc), user permissions, and user direction,
it will be made available to multiple other networks, gateways,
interoperating systems, push capabilities, etc., as applicable. Data
driven, as simple as possible, as complex as necessary. That is the
goal.
R/s
Gary
Gary Ham
http://grandpaham.com
703-899-6241
Gary Ham
http://grandpaham.com
703-899-6241
