[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas
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:gham@grandpaham.com] Sent: March 9, 2010 4:24 PM To: Paulsen,Norm [Ontario] Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; David RR Webber (XML); emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL Subject: Re: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas 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:
Gary Ham
703-899-6241
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]