[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.
From: Gary Ham [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: March 9, 2010 4:24 PM
To: Paulsen,Norm [Ontario]
Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; David RR Webber (XML); firstname.lastname@example.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.
On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Paulsen,Norm [Ontario] wrote: