RE: [obix-xml] Alarm Acknowledgement

["Richards, Dave" <drichards@trane.com>]

Having the operation be against the alarm object itself leaves you unable to
do a bulk acknowledgement.  You'd have multiple round trips rather than one
and I don't know how important that is.  The user would not notice any
difference unless the network was unusually (or inherently) slow.

Also, are there considerations for the implementation of having operations
against dynamic/transient objects?  A fixed service would seem simpler in
some respects.

So to answer your question, I have a feeling, but I'm not yet sure what it
is.

-----Original Message-----
From: ahansen@tridium.com [mailto:ahansen@tridium.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:15 PM
To: obix-xml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [obix-xml] Alarm Acknowledgement

I would like change how oBIX alarms are acknowledged.  The specification
currently defines an AlarmService (section 15.4) for doing this.  The sole
purpose of the AlarmService is for acking alarms and the way it is done is
by passing the service a list of alarm URI's.

Since alarms are required to have URI's and are therefore individually
reachable, I don't see the need for the level of indirection the alarm
service introduces.  Instead, I would like to add an ack operation to the
AckAlarm (section 15.2.3) contract.

Does anyone have any feelings about this?