C2MS12 — General Cleanup of the Subject Content of Subject Naming Tables

All Response Messages have RESPONSE-STATUS in the ME2 position of the subject, but in the Suject Naming Table, this is represented inconsistently between different messages.

Simple Service is the only one that has the proper "Subject Content", which should be "[RESPONSE-STATUS]". However, Simple Service also has incorrect values in that ME2 field.

This issue is for the Subject Naming Tables to use [RESPONSE-STATUS] in ME2 for each Response Message and to confirm valid values in the examples.

Additionally, many other Message Elements that represent a value of a Message Field also show possible values in the Subject Content, even though this is already described elsewhere. See Log Message as an specific example. All these should be reduced to [<FIELD-NAME>] instead of showing the incomplete list of possible values. Doing so will make this table more clear. This change needs to be done for each Subject Naming Table, so should be a directive to the Editor with an example or two, rather than enumerating each case.

Additionally, when these MEs represent a specific named field of the message, they should list it in the brackets. For example, instead of "[request id]" it should be "[REQUEST-ID]"

Standardize Subject Tables

Fix any offending Message Subject Naming tables. This resolution provides permission to the editor to make all changes to these tables per the following rules and using the example attachments modifications as a guide:

• All Response Messages have RESPONSE-STATUS in the ME2 position of the subject, but in the Subject Naming Table, this is represented inconsistently between different messages. Subject Naming Tables to use [RESPONSE-STATUS] in ME2 for each Response Message. This is illustrated per the example of Replay Telemetry Data Response Message which has a before and after attachment.

• Additionally, many other Message Elements that represent a value of a Message Field also show possible values in the Subject Content, even though this is already described elsewhere. See Log Message as an specific example. All these should be reduced to [<FIELD-NAME>] instead of showing the incomplete list of possible values.

• Also, when these MEs represent a specific named field of the message, they should list it in the brackets. For example, instead of "[request id]" it should be "[REQUEST-ID]". This is shown in the changes (via attachments) to the xxx xxx xxx Subject Naming table.

Finally, Simple Service Response also has incorrect example values in the ME2 field, and is corrected here to contain proper values.