DDSXTY14 — Remove misleading sentence from 7.6.3.4.1 TypeConsistencyEnforcementQosPolicy: Conceptual Model

Section 7.6.3.4.1 TypeConsistencyEnforcementQosPolicy: Conceptual Model says:

* The ignore_member_names option controls whether member names are taken into consideration for type assignability. If the option is set to TRUE, member names are considered as part of assignability in addition to member IDs (so that members with the same ID also have the same name). If the option is set to FALSE (the default), then member names are not ignored.

This can be misleading because the parenthetical explanation (so that members with the same ID also have the same name) only covers half of the assignability rules regarding memberId/memberName matching. Meaning Table 19 Assignability rules for Struct. The second bullet says

* Any members in T1 and T2 that have the same name also have the same ID and any members with the same ID also have the same name.

So relaxing only the constraint "so that members with the same ID also have the same name" is not enough to ignore the member name. Rather you need to also relax the "members in T1 and T2 that have the same name also have the same ID"

The language in the section that follows: 7.6.3.4.2 "Rules for Type Consistency Enforcement" leaves less room for confusion as it says

If the subscription allows type coercion and the ignore_member_names flag is true in TypeConsistencyEnforcementQoSPolicy, assignability checking shall ignore the member names in both Subscription and Publication types. That is, only member IDs will impact assignability.

A possible solution is to update 7.6.3.4.1 to use he to use the same language as 7.6.3.4.2, or just remove the parenthentical expression as the precise rules are already in 7.6.3.4.2.