C Language Mapping Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

C Language Mapping — Open Issues

  • Acronym: C
  • Issues Count: 871
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
CSRM11-4 Recommended Additions CSRM 1.0a1 open
CSRM11-1 Icons for profile CSRM 1.0b1 open
CSRM11-2 Add constraints to aid in correctness of profile useage CSRM 1.0b1 open
CSRM11-3 Create examples of use of the profile CSRM 1.0b1 open
CPP1117-28 Add && setter CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-27 std::optional should be passed as const& CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-26 Formatting c++/idl in text CPP11 1.6b1 open
CSRM11-5 xmi profile CSRM 1.0b2 open
CPP1117-24 Fix bitset mapping CPP11 1.6b1 open
C2MS11-190 Use Semantic Versioning for Version Number of Messages C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-192 Remove the Req/Resp/Pub MEP C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-191 Remove XSDs as Normative Documents C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-189 Add a section describing expected use C2MS 1.0 open
COMMONS11-1 Several OMG task forces have a need for a common ontology for quantities and units COMMONS 1.0b2 open
COMMONS11-5 Several OMG and external projects need a pattern for representing parties, the roles that they play and situations in which they are involved in COMMONS 1.0b2 open
COMMONS11-3 Need to add start and end time and explicit time period in Commons COMMONS 1.0b2 open
COMMONS11-8 Rename the new composites ontology to roles and compositions COMMONS 1.0b2 open
CPP1117-14 bit_bound CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-10 Improve bitmask mapping CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-13 Missing annotation mapping CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-11 Change struct VariableExt constructor CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-12 Add bit_bound/underlying_type for enum traits CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-8 Incorrect constructor referenced in Fixed description CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-9 Typo CPP11 1.6b1 open
CPP1117-7 Missing description related to union member modifier CPP11 1.6b1 open
CORBA35-448 ConfigValues to a std map CORBA 3.4 open
OARIS21-25 C2INav Model refers to an old OARIS Common Types package C2INAV 1.0 open
COMMONS11-4 Several OMG and external projects need a pattern for representing compositions COMMONS 1.0b2 open
COMMONS11-2 Need an ontology representing multidimensional arrays COMMONS 1.0b2 open
C2MS11-187 Consolidate all Table and Model Figure changes into one Issue C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-45 C2MS Database Query (DBQUERY) messages C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-83 Consider forcing a limited subscription C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-182 Deprecate fields duplicated between C2MS Messages and the Message Envelope C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-178 Normalize the "Additional Information" Tables Showing Fields for Messages C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-184 Remove Superfluous Fields from Header and Envelope C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-163 Align TLM Messages against Subject Elements and Fields C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-177 At Next Major Revision: Evalutate all Required/Optional/Dependent states for consistency C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-176 At Next Major Revision: Order MEs and Fields Consistently C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-130 Create an optional Message Envelope to hold Tracking Fields C2MS 1.0 open
C2INAV13-3 Enumeration value ESTIMATED used twice in the same package C2INAV 1.2b1 open
C2INAV13-2 Enumeration value ESTIMATED used twice in the same package C2INAV 1.2b1 open
C2MS11-170 Replace simple service REQ/RESP C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-143 Header UNIQUE-ID is Type "Header String" C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-169 Clarify Text Associated with Simple Service Req/Resp C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-111 SERV message, add field SERVICE-GROUP C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-110 PROD message, add fields PROD_SUBTYPE C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-19 Larger Data Types C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-42 C2MS: Optional Transfer Frame/Packet attributes should be described in schema C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-44 Consider a mechanism to request archived Commands and Events C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-16 REQUEST-ID field does not support usage as a GUID C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-7 XML PSM recommended C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2INAV13-1 C2INav Model refers to an old OARIS Common Types package C2INAV 1.2 open
CORBA35-447 Add support for IDL4 int8/uint8/map/bitset/bitfield/bitmask CORBA 3.4 open
C2MS11-173 Clarify how to specify array and aggregate parameters (MNEMONICs) in MVAL and related messages C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-35 Review and fix all uses of DESTINATION-COMPONENT in the Miscellaneous Elements of subjects C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-47 Using REQ Messages for 'Publish' C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-101 Text for AMVAL REQ references non-existing fields C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-25 Make all subjects be buildable from fields in the message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-27 Time Type table clarification for the DDD portion C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-23 In message tables, rework the "value" column to allow for fixed values vs. default values C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-88 Create CMD-MNEMONIC Field in Command Request Message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-139 Update Text Associated with REQUEST-ID as Replacement Issue C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-54 VCID and APID in Message Subject for TLMTDM Frame C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-114 Remove APID from TLMFRAME C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-115 Remove APID from TLMPROC C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-39 Add field APID (and VCID) to Telemetry CCSDS Packet Message C2MS 1.0 open
CORBA35-1 Levels of Indirection for passing COM types seem to be missing CORBA 2.0 open
C2MS11-151 Reconsider Oneshot in MVAL Request/Response C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-137 Revisit SAMPLE-RATE C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-140 Replace Unsolicited Echo with a Separate Message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-138 Command Echo Not Provided Message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-141 Improve text related to ONESHOT in Mval Request Message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-144 STREAM-MODE Issues with Replay Telemetry Message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-135 NUM-OF-[ITEMS] Should be Required C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-131 Split ME1 in Simple Service Req/Resp C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-56 Clarify Correlation PUBLISH-RATE and SAMPLE-RATE on Mnemonic Value Request Message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-136 MNEMONIC CRITERIA Needs alignment with C2MS11-56 C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-90 Real-world STREAM-MODE Issues C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-120 Deprecate REQ-STRING in Product Request Message C2MS 1.0 open
CPP13-82 Improve wording CPP 1.3 open
CPP1116-38 Improve wording CPP11 1.6b1 open
ABPSC-33 URLs, URIs and namespaces for CMMN 1.1 XSDs are not aligned CMMN 1.1 open
C2MS11-41 C2MS specification on page 168 is not clear regarding CMD-FORMAT=MNEMONIC C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-8 Acknowledge Final Status inconsistency C2MS 1.0b1 open
LCC13-6 LCC ontologies and reference data should be refactored to use the Commons library COMMONS 1.0 open
CORBA35-446 Add CDR marshaling support for IDL4 int8/uint8/map/biset/bitfield/bitmask CORBA 3.3 open
CORBA35-445 Replace Cookie with a string and use IDL map CORBA 3.4 open
CORBA35-442 The use of Full Services definitions in CORBA/e spec CORBAe 1.0b1 open
CORBA35-444 Extend InvalidName exception CORBA 3.4 open
CORBA35-443 Add CompressorId for zstd CORBA 3.4 open
CORBA35-440 Ordering of user exception and return values CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-439 Standard uuid for interfaces (COM/CORBA Part A) CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-441 CORBA section 11 struct PortableGroup::GroupInfo CORBAe 1.0b1 open
CORBA35-436 What should Automation View accept in bounded sequences? CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-434 Section 4.1.12: DICORBA TypeCode::kind CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-435 Standard ProgramId CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-438 Section 4.1.18.5 enum should be named CORBA_CompletionStatus CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-437 VB cannot handle array out-parameters CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-432 Add CORBATCKind to end of enum list CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-431 Return value type of DICORBATypeCode::member_type should be changed CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-429 page 2-25 contradicts first sentence of 3rd full para on p 4-106 CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-430 uuid for DForeignException has an extra 0 CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-433 Remove EX_repositoryID readonly property from IForeignException CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-424 boundary violations should cause View to propagate DISP_E_OVERFLOW CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-422 page 4-129, section 4.1.17: change term "CORBA proxy" CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-423 page 4-129, section 4.1.17.1: retval attribute CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-421 INSTANCE_Clone does not need an in-parameter CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-428 ODL is erroneous CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-427 Page 2-41, section 2.9.7.2 Add name for Automation View interface CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-426 page 2-30: There is a label "Examples", but no examples CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-425 page 4-109, section 4.1.5.3: editorial CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-414 "Safe" keyword identifier issue CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-415 Which TypeCode operations apply to Value and ValueBox? CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-416 Section 5.5 Interface repository (02) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-413 Can Value type inherit from Value Box type? CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-418 Can value type inherit from Value Box type CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-419 Automation View should generate HRESULT DISP_E_TYPEMISMATCH CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-417 Section 5.5 Interface repository (01) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-420 Dispatch versions of DCORBAObject and DORBObject CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-408 describe_value() operation issue CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-410 p.6.68 boxed values of complex types map to same type CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-412 New lexical type - Keyword Identifie CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-411 Section 5.3.3: can value inherit from a boxed value? CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-409 Value type ansd Value Box"s single data member name CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-407 Missing member_kind and member_tc CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-399 Concrete value class CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-400 Semantics of computing the hash code.. CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-401 Section 5.6.3 Hashing Algorythm CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-403 Repository Id (02) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-404 Section 5.6.2 Repository Id CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-402 Repository Id (03) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-406 Type code issue CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-405 Clarify the hash code algorithm CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-394 Section 7.3.10 Value Factories CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-396 Section 7 C++ Language mapping CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-395 Java mapping example and C++ mapping example CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-393 Why is ValueBase a value and not a native type? CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-397 Section 7.3.6 Reference Counting Mix-in Classes CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-398 Section 7.3.5 ValueBase and Reference Counting CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-387 p 5-50 2nd paragraph of 5.6.2.1 CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-388 Editorial: p 5-50 CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-389 Suggested changes (to section 5.4.1 of orbos/98-01-18) are CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-392 Can an instance of C be passed by value to an operation that expects an A? CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-390 p 5-24, first paragraph of 5.3.1.3 CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-391 Editorial page 8-107 CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-384 Keyword identifiers (01) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-386 Can public modifier be applied to value operations? CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-385 Reconcile RMI/IIOP upcall and helper class CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-380 No portable way to obtain list of type safe repository IDs CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-382 Keyword Identifiers(03) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-381 Keyword identifiers (04) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-383 Keyword identifiers (02) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-373 OBV "chunking" CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-376 "in". "out", and "inout" modifiers on value operation parameters CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-374 Can "public" mofifier be applied to value operations? CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-375 Typo on page 8-107 of OBV specification CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-377 Narrowing from abstract interfaces CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-378 Sections 5.3.1.2 vs. 6.3.1: Mapping of non-public state to java private CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-379 Marshaling engine issue CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-368 OBV spec inefficient for dending large number of small objects CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-367 Some explicit semantics seem to be missing in section5.8.6 CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-366 Forward declaration of value boxes CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-365 TypeCodes for values CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-369 OBV C++ problem with "supports" CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-371 TypeCodes defined in section 5.8.2 CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-370 ValueMemberSeq: What is to be done with the RepositoryID parameter? CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-372 CDR Streams CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-359 P 5-44: use of base type CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-360 OBV TypeCode parameters wrong CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-357 No typecodes for abstract interfaces CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-358 Abstract Interface issue (write_Abstract/read_Abstract)(01) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-362 Custom marshalling support for IDL fixed type CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-363 Default constructor for Java values CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-361 C++ boxed value member clashes CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-364 Boxed values need extension to write_Value call CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-352 Status of hashed repository IDs CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-351 "Tool" issue for IDL compilers too complex CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-350 ValueHelper Interface issue CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-356 TypeCode complexity for value types CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-355 Memory Management for Value Factories Unspecified CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-353 OBV init CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-354 CodeBase interface uses undefined type CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-344 Issue for Firewall RTF - HTTP tunnelling. CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-342 Section number: 3.3.4 and elsewhere CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-343 Title does not cover the use of SS7 as signaling transpor CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-346 passthrough connection CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-345 issue with TCPfirewallMechanism CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-347 Issue for Firewall RTF - Chapter 5 needs clarification CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-348 The values of these tags need to be assigned CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-349 Minimum CORBA and POA CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-336 Section number: 4.2.1 CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-340 Sec.: 3.5.1.1, item 4 plus appropriate section of interaction translation CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-339 Section number: 3.5.1.1, item 3 CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-338 How can we bound the range of invoke ids in the IDL? CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-337 It should be possible to have negative invoke ids CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-341 Section number: 3.3.4 make factory creation operations conform to the IDL CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-332 Section 4.3.2.1 Title and text should be changed CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-331 Section 4.7.1: RelativeRoundTripPolicy CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-335 Problem: Why is AssociationId a string? CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-333 There is a difference between the responder and initiator interfaces CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-334 The current text for DialogFlowCtr is for outgoing only CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-328 Section number: 5.4.1 CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-327 Shouldn’t it be typedef string CORBA::ScopedName? CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-326 Section number: Fig. 27 CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-330 Shouldn’t this section really be called TC Service Interface? CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-329 Section number: 5.2 and other sub-sections CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-319 Bi-Directional GIOP: which connections may be used? CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-320 Section number: 2.3 CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-324 Should SIOP version number start with 1.2? CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-322 Problem: There is no way to send dialogue data in a continue confirm. CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-323 Section number: 6.2.2 CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-321 Section number: 5 CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-325 Could SIOP be changed to 7IOP, pronounced "seven-up"? CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-316 Firewall POA Policy does not control access CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-314 new_target CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-313 new_callback CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-315 Firewall Traversal algorithm CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-317 Outgoing local port in Bi-directional IIOP CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-318 Bi-Directional GIOP: Masquerade security issue needs to be more explicit CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-311 Proxified object references CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-309 Clarification is needed on the passing of credentials CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-310 Reusing PASSTHRU CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-312 How to obtain initial reference to the GIOPProxy object CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-302 TcPdu User and Provider interfaces CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-304 Why one to one association between a TcPduUser and TcPduProvider interface? CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-303 Specification Translation from ASN to IDL issue CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-307 Traversal algorithm not sufficient CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-308 Problems with routing and/or traversal of firewalls. CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-305 When does a multiassociation TcUse know that it has been finished with? CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-306 Use of InvokeId as the type name for both invoke id and link id. CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-296 BiDir GIOP Policy Clarification CORBA 2.4.1 open
CORBA35-297 Use of PolicyType id CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-300 Allow GIOP 1.3 messages to be transported. CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-298 Missing definition on security tags in the SIOP CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-299 There is currently no valuetype support in SIOP. CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-301 use of the SSN number in the 1988 TCAP version CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-290 Discrepancy in the changes proposed to CSIIOP and CSI modules CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-289 GIOP version 2.0 issue CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-291 Bidirectional Policy insufficient for persistent objects CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-292 Server Authentication CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-295 MAIN_THREAD_MODEL questions CORBA 2.4.1 open
CORBA35-294 Negotiate Session Message Orientation CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-293 Negotiation Session message is unwieldy CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-281 Implications about BiDirIds CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-282 paragraph limits use of BiDirOfferContext CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-283 Negotiate Session Message Issues CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-284 CodeSet issue (05) CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-287 CodeSet issue (02) CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-286 CodeSet issue (03) CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-288 CodeSet issue (01) CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-285 CodeSet issue (04) CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-275 What BiDirIds shall be sent over what bidirectional connections? CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-276 Interplay of Contexts allowed in NegotiateSession messages too ill-defined CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-274 Firewall FTF Issue: No ene-to-end security for firewall traversal CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-277 Firewall Issue: Random BiDirIds can't be used for persistent POAs CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-278 Firewall Issue: Connection over which BiDir offers are sent is unspecified CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-279 Firewall Issue: Response to failed BiDir challenge is unclear CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-280 Firewall issue - Number of BiDirIds in a BiDirOffer CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-266 use and interpretation of BI_DIR_GIOP_ACCEPT ambiguous CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-268 Limitation and ambiguity in the use of BidirectionalOfferPolicy of DENY CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-267 Bi-directional connections considered volatile at connection acceptor side CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-270 connection_complete field of the FirewallPathRespContext is under specified CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-269 How many BI_DIR_GIOP_OFFER service contexts are allowed CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-272 Targets of Export and Offer Policies incompletely specified CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-271 Expected behavior of a non-conformant implementation CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-273 Processing of NegotiateSession messages at various stages of connection set CORBA 2.5 open
CORBA35-260 Multiple objects on a stream CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-261 Definition of stream portability CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-264 Lifecycle Key type definition CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-263 Stream contexts and internalization CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-262 Start and end of context tags CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-255 Coordinator remembering LockCoordinator CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-254 Input values for "which" arg of non-trans. LockCoordinator CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-256 Freeing of locks at the end of a transaction CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-257 Getting the thread ID in a non-transactional lock request CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-258 Communication failure issue CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-259 Timeout while locking CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-246 CosCompoundExternalization Service CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-247 $issue.summary CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-248 $issue.summary CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-252 Common format on stream CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-251 CosGraphs::deep CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-250 performing a compound copy of relationship CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-249 $issue.summary CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-253 Using local thread identification for concurrency CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-240 Internalizing roles-IDL optimization CORBA 2.1 open
CORBA35-241 Who is responsible for releasing locks in transaction? CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-243 Purpose of related LockSet CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-244 CosCompoundExternalization Service (3) CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-242 Which model should ConcurrencyControl support? CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-245 CosCompoundExternalization Service (2) CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-235 QueryCollection::Collection -- finding index CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-236 Query Collection::Collection -- Sharing State CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-239 Circular References in CosStream and CosCompoundExternalization CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-238 QueryCollection::Collection -- membership scoping CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-237 QueryCollection::Collection -- Adding multiple elements CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-228 Questions on CosQuery::QueryableCollection interfaces CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-231 QueryCollection::Collection -- reset() exceptions CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-229 QueryCollection::Collection -- keyed collections CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-230 QueryCollection::Collection -- next_n() CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-232 QueryCollection::Collection -- destroy methods CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-234 QueryCollection::Collection -- Iterator Position Invalid CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-233 QueryCollection::Collection -- iterator updating CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-220 Query language for operations CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-223 Definition of NULL in datafiles without NULL as a concept CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-221 Delegating iterator functionality to the RDBMS CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-224 Clarification request for section 11.1.5 CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-222 retrieve_element CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-225 How do iterators handle changing of the data they are pointing at CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-227 Use of MD5 on arguments CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-226 Updating information via query iterators CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-213 Inconsisten IDL in the Minimum CORBA chapter CORBA 2.4.2 open
CORBA35-215 TypedConsumerAdmin interface (4.9.2)) CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-214 Correction of CORBA specification (page 18-51) CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-216 WWW Form output CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-218 interface QueryEvaluator { CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-217 Malformed PropertyName CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-219 OQS relation to POS CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-208 COM/CORBA keywords CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-212 CosExternaliazation Service (bug?) CORBA 2.4.2 open
CORBA35-210 ObjectCreationError and Nofactory exceptions in Externilazition CORBA 2.2 open
CORBA35-211 CosConsurrencyControl service bug or not? CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-209 Compiler being able to translate from OMG-IDL into ANSI CORBA 1.2 open
CORBA35-206 Unclear and possibly harmful consequences of mandatory annotation definitions CORBA 3.1.1 open
CORBA35-205 Section: 15.4.5.1 struct has to be updated CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-207 Fixed Types in COM CORBA 2.4.2 open
CORBA35-200 How does DynValue handle derived valuetypes? CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-198 Spec doesn't make clear what is valid mix of policies and what is invalid CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-199 messaging router issue CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-204 valuetypes and local interfaces CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-203 Section 22.2.4.6 interface RelativeRoundtripTimeoutPolicy CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-202 CORBA 3.02, page 11-25, section 11.3.6 CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-201 module SendingContext CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-192 rules for marshalling ValueBoxes CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-191 BNF changes CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-193 Problem with ServerRequestInterceptor::receive_request and DSI CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-194 restriction of where a valuetype chunk can end CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-195 Bad text in 22.6 mandates Routing for sendc/sendp CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-196 What is the RSC when using a PersistentPoller CORBA 3.0.1 open
CORBA35-197 Messaging Routing Protocol is broken for GIOP 1.0 & 1.1 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-188 Codec Interface Deficiencies CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-187 methods on the POA CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-186 Add a typedef for the POAManager id CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-189 An extension of IOR to protect target objects Nature CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-190 Mapping from -ORBxxx to Java properties does not work for -ORBInitRef CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-183 The POA state inactive is not used consistent. CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-182 CORBA 3.0.3 ch. 3.4 OMG IDL Grammar CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-184 argument of the set_servant call has a small typo CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-181 Section: 4.3.13 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-185 change in the POAManager CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-174 Issue: CSIv2 Identity Assertion CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-175 Polymorphic Valuetypes and the DII CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-176 DynValue & custom valuetypes CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-179 Code Set Conversion on Operations CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-178 Potential deadlock with POA::deactivate_object() CORBA 2.3 open
CORBA35-177 Custom Value Marshaling Issue CORBA 2.3.1 open
CORBA35-180 Appendix A CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-168 ForwardRequest is impossible to detect in clients CORBA 2.6.1 open
CORBA35-171 Avoiding RSC/TSC copy on server side CORBA 2.4.1 open
CORBA35-172 Implications of any/valuetype marshalling CORBA 2.4.1 open
CORBA35-170 Proposal for extension to CosNaming CORBA 2.6 open
CORBA35-169 New issue: ForwardRequest() CORBA 2.6 open
CORBA35-173 How does an ORB implement Object::get_policy for PI defined policies? CORBA 2.4.1 open
CORBA35-164 rule (85) is misplaced CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-167 processing TaggedComponents within an IOR CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-165 Bad quotes and imported dot CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-166 missing document title CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-157 Section: 4.8.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-158 move struct to IOP module CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-159 Add create_policy with just the type as argument CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-160 context should be local interface CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-163 Make anonymous types illegal CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-161 Redundant bullet CORBA 3.2 open
CORBA35-162 interface ORB should be local CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-151 There is lack of multiplex publisher port that would mimic functionality of multiplex receptacle CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-150 Section: 21.3.13 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-152 16.10 lists register_initial_reference CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-156 Section: 21.7.3 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-154 add CORBA::ORB::arg_list CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-153 add interface ORB { Object string_to_object ( in wstring str ); }; CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-155 Section 13.7 ServiceContext CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-142 Section: Part 2, Chapter 11 - MIOP CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-144 definition of Invalid Policies changed CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-143 mention of (deprecated) function get_implementation removed from text CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-147 Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::ReplyStatus to a real enum CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-146 Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::AdapterState to a real enum CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-148 Section: 15.4.2/16.4.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-145 Third line of 23.1.3.4, ACTIVE must be bold CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-149 Section: 13.6.10.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-140 Two typo's in Annex A.4 CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-141 struct PolicyValue CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-132 Section: 7.4 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-135 Moving *Seq typedefs into ORB chapter CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-134 Minor code ambiguity CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-133 Typo in sections 22.10.1.1 and 22.10.1.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-127 Section: 21.7 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-128 update the spec to not used anonymous types CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-126 Section: 21.9.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-125 Section: 21.4.3.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-129 Section: 4.2 (02) CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-130 Section: 4.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-131 Section: 13.6.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-120 FullInterfaceDescription and base_interfaces question CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-117 Allowing mutual recursion for IDL structs - clarification needed CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-118 CORBA Exceptions CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-119 Section: 11.3.9.16 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-124 Section: 11.3.9 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-123 Section: 22.16/ CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-121 Page: 21-43 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-122 Section: 22.11.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-111 Page: 7-7 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-112 Page: 9-1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-113 Page: 21-5 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-115 Section: 21.3.14.11 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-116 Section: 4.5.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-114 Section: Appendix A CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-106 69.8.2.8 The simple Element, page 69-538 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-107 Section: Chapter 9, Chapter 5 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-108 Section: Chapter 11 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-109 Allowing Mutual Recursion for IDL Structures CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-110 NVList Section: 7.5 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-99 69.3.2.15 The implementation Element, pages 69-478/479 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-100 69.3 Software Package Descriptor CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-101 Add the capability to define a component artifact property CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-103 69.8.2.9 The sequence Element CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-102 Test Property - add a test property definition to the properties DTD CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-104 69.8.2.3 The choices Element, page 69-537 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-105 69.8.2.7 The range Element, pages 69-537/538 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-92 Component Artifact Dependency CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-91 LWCCM issue - Section 1.5.3 Exclusion CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-96 69.3.2.25 The propertyfile Element, page 69-482 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-93 69.3.2.2 The author Element, page 69-474 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-95 69.3.2.14 The idl Element, page 69-478 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-94 Descriptor CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-98 69.8.2.7 The code Element, pages 69-474 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-97 69.3.2.15 The implementation Element, pages 69-478/479 CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-85 lwCCM issues - abstract storage type CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-87 lwCCM issues - entity components CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-88 lwCCM issues - persistence CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-86 lwCCM issues - section 4.1.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-90 lwCCM issues - transaction CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-89 lwCCM issues - security CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-84 lwCCM issues - abstract storage home CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-83 lwCCM issues - CIDL CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-82 lwCCM issues - locator CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-81 lwCCM issues - segmentation CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-75 lwCCM issues - home finders and finder operations CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-76 lwCCM issues - proxy homes CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-74 lwCCM issues - invalid rows CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-79 lwCCM issues - primary key CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-80 lwCCM issues - get_all_facet, ... CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-78 lwCCM issues - Section 4.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-77 lwCCM issues - configurators CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-67 Checking XML DTD elements related to the trader service CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-68 Description for the impltype Element? CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-70 Uses Relationships CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-69 69.3 AssemblyFactory Interface CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-71 Device Artifact Dependency CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-72 Dependency on D+C FTF CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-73 lwCCM issues - Entity2Context CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-64 A new exception specification is needed for CCM2Context::req_passivate() CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-61 CCM IDL style inconsistency CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-62 Derived component supported interface restriction (formal/2002-06-65) CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-63 Issue on the description of the consumesidentifier element CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-66 Using Configurator on CCMHome or any CORBA objects? CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-65 [CCM] Interface Repository Metamodel CORBA 3.0 open
CORBA35-55 Section 6.4.5.26 and Section 6.4.5.30 should be moved to section 6.3 CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-56 Section 6.4.5.10 (page 6-26) CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-58 CCM spec: insufficient examples of component attributes CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-60 multiple lifetime policies declaration issue CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-59 3.2.7 Compositions with Managed Storage CCM 3.0 open
CORBA35-57 Section 6.4.5.52 (page 6-38) CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-52 'local executor mapping' CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-51 portability of CCM descriptors CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-50 EnterpriseComponent should have a get_servant method CCM 3.0 open
CORBA35-54 issue on component supporting abstract interfaces CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-53 CCM Spec: attributes are listed in the ports section? CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-44 EnterpriseComponent should have a set_persistent_object method CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-43 HomeExecutorBase should have a set_context method CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-45 Generic connectivity for Receptacles, Emitters, Publishers CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-46 HomeExecutorBase should have a get_servant method CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-47 EnterpriseComponent should have a get_servant method CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-48 The association of entity component primary key and PSS key is unclear CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-49 HomeExecutorBase should have a get_servant method CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-40 Contradictory sections in the CCM and Lightweight CCM specifications CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-39 The D&C IDL part doesn't match 06-04-02. CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-38 add a sequence of CCMHome typedef sequence CCMHomes; CORBA 3.1 open
CORBA35-42 add some feature to let an assembly look like a monolithic compoment CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-41 "supports" keyword CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA35-28 CCMHome should have a get_components method CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-29 CCMHome should have a get_container method CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-22 Interface Introspection CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-24 Generic port connections CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-23 LwCCM issue - Section 1.4.3.3 Exclusion CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-26 HomeConfigurator should not extend CCMHome CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-27 Session2Context interface CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-25 LwCCM issue - Section 1.6.8 Exclusion CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-16 page 1-20 and page 1-21 - editorial CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-20 Change new GIOP Negotiate Session Message to Firewall Specific CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-19 GIOP Conformance and Interceptors CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-18 context interface for home implementation CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-17 page 1-20 the description of the get_connection operation CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-21 CodeSet and CSIv2 Negotitaion CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-10 valuetype fragmentation ambiguous CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-11 Clarification on multi-threaded codeset negotiation CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-12 15.3.3 - codesets must be "explicitly defined" CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-13 [Components] Contradiction between IDL and Interface Repository concerning CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-14 Chapter/section: 15.4.2.2 "Request Body" CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-15 page 1-20 second bullet of the description of the disconnect operation CORBA 3.0.2 open
CORBA35-4 Duplicate union labels CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-3 COM Sequence changes CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-5 Changes to ForeignComplexType CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-6 Section 13A.5.2: Editorial CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-7 Section 13A.2.3: editorial CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-8 Capter 13C: Editorial CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-9 Incorrect mappings for systems exceptions (part A) CORBA 2.0 open
CORBA35-2 Section 13C.1.3 Editorial CORBA 2.0 open
C2MS11-109 TLMTDM message, add AP-ID and VCID fields C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-121 Consider Making Fields in UML Public vs Private C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-112 Align MESSAGE-CLASS with Usage C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-43 Deprecate Archive Message Retrieval Messages C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-36 Add DESTINATION-NODE and DESTINATION-FACILITY as fields C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-108 TLM CCSDS FRAME, TLM Processed Frame messages need AP-ID fields C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-106 CFG, CNTL, DEV, HB, RSRC Messages need fields DESTINATION-NODE and DESTINATION-FACILITY C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-107 TLMPKT Message needs field AP-ID C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-14 Specify multiplicity for required and optional fields C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS11-15 Log message scope too broad, need Alert/Status style message introduced C2MS 1.0b2 open
C2MS11-17 Make Fields Table and UML Match the Order of Fields for greater Readabliity C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-30 Clarify the ".... Message Header Notes" tables re: being included in each message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-11 For consistency, all message types should have a name that ends with "message" C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS11-4 Parameter Mnemonic Messages Misses "setter" C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS11-49 Consider Renaming "Header String" type to "Subject Token String" C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-55 REQUEST-ID as "Replacement" and related STOP C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-18 All Messages Subclass Message Header C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-31 Clarify the UML diagrams regarding the values for the fields inherited from Message Header C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-29 In Message Header, make NODE and USER-NAME string rather than Header String C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-28 Add DESTINATION_NODE and DESTINATION_FACILITY to Message Header C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-87 Missing Echo Request C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-48 Add Message-level Security Constructs C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-75 Move Tracking Fields to a "Message Envelope" C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-34 In message Archive Message Retrieval Response, fix Header field names C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-40 Control Message SPECIAL_INFO Field type should be String C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-38 In the Control Message, the field CNTL-STRING should be required C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-37 Remove value for CNTL-STRING from CNTL message C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-46 Using REQ Messages for 'Publish' C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-26 Document that Header String type is to be at least one ASCII character C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-32 Add field for USER to Message Header C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-33 Add security fields that GMSEC API inserts into encrypted messages as Tracking Fields in C2MS C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-24 Add a Message Exchange Pattern (MEP) for a component to forward requests/responses C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-20 Harmonize Replay TLM and Archive Mnemonic Message Sets C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-13 Add documentation within the model C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS11-22 Message-level Security Credentials C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-21 Larger Data Types C2MS 1.0 open
C2MS11-6 Procedure Execution Status/Progress/Detail Messages C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS11-10 Requesting data via pub/sub requires knowing publisher's service name C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS11-12 "Mnemonic" should be called "Parameter" C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS11-9 Pub/Sub subscription status unknown C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS11-2 C2CX Heartbeat comments C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS11-3 Archive Mnemonic Value Request comments C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS11-1 Lack of a registry concept C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS11-5 Data Dictionary Messages C2MS 1.0b1 open
CPP11-267 Extend Union mapping CPP 1.3 open
DDS4CCM11-18 Editorial corrections CCCMP 1.0 open
DDS4CCM11-17 Use of symbolic constant as string or sequence bound CCCMP 1.0 open
DDS4CCM11-16 Typos at figure 8.6 Constant example CCCMP 1.0 open
CORP-10 Support alternative way of modeling single dimension CORBAArray CORP 1.0b1 open
CORP-9 Use of expression as sequence/array bound CORP 1.0b1 open
CORP-8 Missing support for IDL "native" CORP 1.0b1 open
CCCMP-16 Bounded string attribute of struct/union/valuetype/interface is not mapped CCCMP 1.0 open
CR-154 Clarify semantics of None Event Listeners CMMN 1.1 open
CCCMP-15 Extended UML metamodel derivations of <> CCCMP 1.0 open
CR-153 Inconsistent spelling of color attributes in text, MM and XSD CMMN 1.1 open
CR-152 An Initial transition can't contain any trigger/event CMMN 1.1 open
CR-151 autoComplete doesn't take into account the event listeners CMMN 1.1 open
CR-150 Figure 7.4 'CMMN Shape' shows attribute isExpanded instead of isCollapsed CMMN 1.1 open
CR-148 Wrong manual activation default and missing defaults for ManualActivationRules, RequiredRules and RepetitionRules without condition CMMN 1.1 open
CR-149 Name missmatch between Table 5.51 and MM/XSD for condition of RequiredRules CMMN 1.1 open
CR-146 Process Task and Case Task should have performer defined CMMN 1.1 open
CR-147 Allow the possibility to define multiple standard events for an onPart CMMN 1.1 open
CTS213-13 Faulty CTS2 1.1 wsdl files CTS2 1.2 open
COLL-16 semantics of boolean iterator.next(out thing) ... COLL 1.0b1 open
CWM12-17 21.5 SQL-99 Data Types CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-71 Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-57 CWM should consider generating XML Schemas, in both XMI 1.x and XMI 2.0 CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-70 Add a representation for sequence to CWM relational package CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-56 Make ChangeRequest useful CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-22 Location: 12.1 Overview CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-76 CWM Object resource package does not provide support for exceptions CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-7 Location: 5.4 CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-11 Annex F: Acknowledgements CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-64 The XML package should be revised/extended to represent XML schema metadata CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-39 Location: 3 Normative References -- OCL CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-16 21.6 Type Mapping Examples CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-14 Annex A: References CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-5 Add features for 11404 aggregates CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-47 TaggedValue CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-53 Modeling and packaging guidelines CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-54 Rationalize 'Measurement' CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-50 SQLParameter CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-42 Introduction - references CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-26 Location: 10.3.16 SQLIndex CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-9 Introduction, Page XVII CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-2 The XML features should support current XML data structures CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-38 Location: 4 Abbreviations and Conventions - ODBC CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-1 Add support for flat and nested N-dimensional arrays CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-41 Location: 3 Normative References CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-24 10.3.18 SQLParameter CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-69 Inconsistencies caused by changing Expression etc from Data Types to Classe CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-52 Warehouse processes missing physical information CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-27 Location: 10.2.8 Procedures CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-61 Inadequate support for Organizational Structures CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-45 figure 6, page 212 CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-21 10.3.20 SQLStructuredType - referencingColumn CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-34 4 Abbreviations and Conventions - SQL-92 and SQL-99 CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-20 13.3.9 Schema CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-58 CWM should consider generating XMI 1.2 DTDs CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-48 Invalid explicit references for some 'association generalizations' in the CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-73 consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of Core::Package CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-65 Generic Data Mining metamodel issue CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-3 Support the full set of 11404 aggregates. CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-31 Location: 10.2.4 Structured Types and Object Extension , Figure 10.5 CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-12 Annex D: Legal Information CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-60 CWM should consider using MOF 1.4 for it's metamodel CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-66 The metamodel for DTD should be reviewed CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-51 We only need one COBOL Data Division metamodel. CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-33 Location: 10.1 Overview CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-30 Location: 10.2.6 Index CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-19 10.4.2 ColumnRefStructuredType CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-18 13.1 Overview CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-13 Annex C: Glossary CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-55 Predefined' values not defined in metamodel CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-59 Component Re-use unclear CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-62 Make it easier to interchange UML Models CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-46 Parameter CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-32 Location: 10.2.4 Structured Types and Object Extensions CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-29 Location: 10.3.15 SQLDistinctType CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-77 supplierDependency reference is missing from ModelElement CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-68 Description, Document, ResponsibleParty should be made subtypes of Comment CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-37 Location: 3 Normative References - ISO/IEC 9075:2003 Database language SQL CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-35 Location: 10.1 Overview CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-49 page 9-276/Section: 9.3.22 of ptc/2002-01-02 -- CWM issue CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-23 10.3.20 SQLStructuredType CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-74 package may fail to permit definition of transformations CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-75 XML Schema package issue CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-78 XML metamodel should be based on W3C XML Information Set CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-8 Add syntax type to the metamodel. CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-15 Annex B: Compatibility with other Standards CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-6 value "name" attribute of ModelElement CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-4 Add datatype generators CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-63 Practical changes to Contact metamodel CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-67 All OCL sections should be reviewed to ensure that they are complete CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-40 Location: 4 Abbreviations and Conventions CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-36 Location: 4 Abbreviations and Conventions - SQL CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-44 Foreword CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-43 formal/03-03-02 CWM 1.1 open
CPP13-1 1.16.3 Extraction from any CPP 1.1 open
CWM12-10 5.4 datatype attributes don't incorporate the features of 11404 datatype CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-72 Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms CWM 1.0 open
CWM12-28 Location: 10.3.14 SQLDataType CWM 1.1 open
CWM12-25 10.3.17 SQLIndexColumn CWM 1.1 open
COLL-15 IDL does not match COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-14 Suggested changes to Collection spec. COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-13 Failure behavior for iterator operations COLL 1.0b1 open
CPP13-81 Practical problem with DII using Request Pseudo Object CPP 1.0b1 open
COLL-9 Interface OrderedCollection COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-8 Page 17-29: OrderedCollection.remove_element_at_position COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-7 Page 17-26: Collection.all_elements_do COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-6 page 17-23: Collection.remove_all COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-5 Collection.add_element COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-4 Map/SortedMap COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-3 CORBAservices (editorial page 17-74, 17-75) COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-2 CORBAservices (editorial page 17-71 to 17-73) COLL 1.0b1 open
COLL-1 Error in CosCollection information COLL 1.0b1 open
CORP-1 Section: 3.5.19 - 3.5.20 CORP 1.0b1 open
CCCMP-3 Section 9 of UML Profile for CORBA and CCM CCCMP 1.0 open
CCCMP-2 Section: 8.2.1 - 2 CCCMP 1.0 open
CCCMP-1 Section: 8.1.2 CCCMP 1.0 open
CCCMP-4 Inconsistent capitalization of <> CCCMP 1.0 open
CCMP-1 definition of the stereotype CORBAPrimaryKey CCMP 1.0b1 open
CCMP-3 Facet and Receptacles (ports) CCMP 1.0b1 open
CCMP-2 The (IDL) definition of the example is not correct CCMP 1.0b1 open
CCMP-4 Event ports CCMP 1.0b1 open
CCMP-6 Association needed CCMP 1.0b1 open
CCMP-5 Figure6: associations described Event ports have to be composite associatio CCMP 1.0b1 open
CSAR-1 Text and Java API differ on return value for seacrhChemicalElements method CSAR 1.0 open
CURR11-21 Place maximums on wstrings for interoperability CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-15 Add interfaces to DTime properly handle the DAmountOfTime difference inter CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-17 Improve text in specification of of DAmountOfTime CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-16 Support millisecond precision in DAmountOfTime CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-20 Changing RoundType.DONT_ROUND CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-19 Add ability to clone Money CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-23 Remove Depedence in FBCCurrency of CBO::DDecimal CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-22 Remove Dependence in FBCCurrency of CBO::DTime CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-18 Remove dependence on a specific version of the ISO 4217 standard CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-8 : Change name of interface to CBO::Decima CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-7 Corrections to the equals/setEquals interfaces of DTime CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-6 Improve DTime exception handling CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-14 Add interface to DTime CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-13 Clarification required on setYear of the DTime interface CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-12 support to set precision to something other than milliseconds CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-5 describe how the individual components should be accessed CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-4 Description of Exception handling semantics CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-3 Add text for DTime and DDecimal from CBO submission into Currency spec. CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-11 : Change name of interface to CBO::Time CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-10 Add interfaces to DDecimal CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-9 Clarify the equality method of DDecimal CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-2 The idl for CBO::DTime needs the method: long getYear() CURR 1.0 open
CURR11-1 Clairfy comparisons of two CBO::Ddecimal values on equality CURR 1.0 open
C2WSDL12-1 Section: 4.1.9 SOAP Binding C2WSDL 1.2 open
COAS-3 GCPR issue: Asynchronous COAS COAS 1.0 open
COAS-2 GCPR Project issue: Delivering Observation Data COAS 1.0 open
COAS-1 new conformance classes and the Naming Service COAS 1.0b1 open
COAS-6 GCPR issue: Updating IDL for Examples COAS 1.0 open
COAS-5 GCPR Issue: Using Relational Operators COAS 1.0 open
COAS-4 GCPR Issue: Event Interface Enhancements COAS 1.0 open
COBOL-2 COBOL Language Mapping Section: 1.2.1.2 COBOL 1.0 open
COBOL-1 anomaly in that unsigned integers are mapped to signed integers COBOL 1.0 open
COBOL-3 Mapping of short and long COBOL 1.0 open
CAD11-7 different tessellation structures for different kind of entities CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-6 CadFoundation::EntityPropsStruct CAD 1.0 open
CAD11-13 CadBrep::OrientedEdge interface issue CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-12 CadBrep module issue CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-17 Documentation for CadMain::Model::unique_entities() CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-16 CadMain::Model interface issue CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-15 Data in CadGeometry::EdgeTessellationStuct CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-14 CADServices 1.1 issue CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-9 exception CadConnection::BadParameter does not match the method anymore CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-8 return value of CadFoundation::Entity::cad_model() CAD 1.0 open
CAD11-11 method CadMain::Model::unique_ids_to_entities() CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-10 description for CadMain::Model::unique_ids_to_entities() is missing CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-5 Model creation parameters CAD 1.1 open
CAD11-4 File CadMain: Method add_child and remove_child CAD 1.0 open
CAD11-1 File CadGeometryExtens CAD 1.0 open
CAD11-3 struct OffsetCurveStruct CAD 1.0 open
CAD11-2 struct HyperbolaStruct should be moved from CadSurface to CadCurve CAD 1.0 open
CPP13-67 Section: 13.6 Server mapping CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-66 Concrete ValueType _init class problem CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-63 _var's and valuetypes CPP 1.2 open
CPP13-62 conversion algorithm not specified CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-58 Fixed and truncation/rounding? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-57 ServantBase needs _get_domain_managers()? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-65 Sequence _var needs const operator [] CPP 1.2 open
CPP13-64 No portable way to create a OUT argument for a DII request CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-61 Prohibit extracting from any into _out type? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-60 Add set of typedefs that would facilitate template programming CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-70 need unchecked narrow CPP 1.2 open
CPP13-69 valuetype example has errors CPP 1.2 open
CPP13-59 UTF-8 and IDL character types in C++ CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-68 Describe operator != and == for all generated types CPP 1.2 open
CPP13-53 Optional parameters for _create_request? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-52 ORB::destroy() missing CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-54 Passing two context lists to _create_request() CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-50 CORBA::RequestSeq or CORBA::ORB::RequestSeq? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-49 _default_POA if no default ORB? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-51 questions to IDL - C++ mapping ( CORBA 2.3, valuebox) CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-56 Inserters/extractors for boxed strings? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-55 publication of messaging / unchecked_narrow CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-43 Supporting typedefs for _var types? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-42 Variable-length out params and exceptions CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-41 Read-only parameter remnants CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-40 Sequence mapping & custom marshalling CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-35 set_servant and null servant CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-34 ref counting ambiguous? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-30 Object Reference insertion/extration to Any CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-39 DSI and implicit activation CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-38 void * operations on Any? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-32 Valuetype "copying" semantics underspecified? (C++ issue # 1) CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-31 ValueBase::_copy_value() function is underspecified CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-33 Valuetype "copying" semantics underspecified? (C++ Issue # 2) CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-36 Issue with valuetypes & inout/out parameters CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-37 Constructor for structures? CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-12 Value Box Mapping CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-11 portable includes CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-16 Setting the TypeCode of an Any without setting a value CPP 1.0 open
CPP13-15 Value boxes and sensible value issue CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-3 C++ _var type widening proposal CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-2 include files CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-10 Is public _ptr member mandatory? CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-9 Need more info for custom marshalled value in C++ CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-8 Generic extraction of Fixed CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-7 Extraction of Fixed from Any CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-5 struct containing Fixed type CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-4 Section 7.3.6: PortableServer::ValueRefCountBase CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-13 Valuetypes as operation arguments CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-14 Memory management of recursive value CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-6 Extraction of strings from an Any CPP 1.0b1 open
CPP13-45 unclear semantics for valuetype insertion into Any CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-44 Any insertion for Boolean/Octet/Char CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-47 CORBA::Environment for EH compilers CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-46 unspecified criterion for Any extraction CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-48 CORBA::release and CORBA::is_nil on POA_ptr CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-29 fixed-length _var assignment from pointer CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-28 UnknownUserException and stubs CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-22 Exceptions in servant constructors CPP 1.0 open
CPP13-21 Abstract interface and DSI issue with C++ CPP 1.0 open
CPP13-19 _default_POA CPP 1.0 open
CPP13-18 ValueBase::_copy_value clarification CPP 1.0 open
CPP13-27 Construction of _var types CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-26 C++ spec: Valuebase missing get_value_def CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-25 C++ ValueBox & Fixed question CPP 1.1 open
CPP13-20 Problem with AbstractBase definition CPP 1.0 open
CPP13-17 IDL that is not IDL! CPP 1.0 open
CPP13-23 _out types and nested calls CPP 1.0 open
CPP13-24 Any and UnknownUserException CPP 1.1 open
C11-55 OpaqueValue needs to be documented in the C Language mapping C 1.1 open
C11-54 Order of structure members C 1.1 open
C11-44 Bound seq buffer allocation C 1.0b1 open
C11-43 Seq buffer deallocation C 1.0b1 open
C11-42 Mapping for Aliases C 1.0b1 open
C11-41 Exception id name C 1.0b1 open
C11-38 Sequence buffer release C 1.0b1 open
C11-37 Sequence buffer initialization C 1.0b1 open
C11-34 Allocation and initialization C 1.0b1 open
C11-33 Exception initialization C 1.0b1 open
C11-40 Argument passing, cases 3 and 6 C 1.0b1 open
C11-39 Exception initialization and release C 1.0b1 open
C11-36 Sequence initialization C 1.0b1 open
C11-35 De-allocation and release C 1.0b1 open
C11-32 System Exception Type C 1.0b1 open
C11-7 implementation hints not specification (Section 14.24.2 last para) C 1.0b1 open
C11-6 Parameter memory freeing problem (Section 14.24.1.para 6) C 1.0b1 open
C11-11 C mapping for sequence (Section 14.11 CORBA 2.0) C 1.0b1 open
C11-10 inconsistent parameter name and order C 1.0b1 open
C11-15 vec10 and CORBA_sequence_long C 1.0b1 open
C11-14 Spec contains mutually inconsistent examples C 1.0b1 open
C11-18 sequence as anonymous type in struct C 1.0b1 open
C11-17 Declare and define Allocators for new sequence type C 1.0b1 open
C11-8 What happens when set_exception called more than once? C 1.0b1 open
C11-13 C mapping for Any C 1.0b1 open
C11-12 Representation of "string" values in an "any" C 1.0b1 open
C11-16 Allocation Functions for sequences of "T" C 1.0b1 open
C11-9 confusing presentation (Section 14.25.4) C 1.0b1 open
C11-53 Error in C language specification C 1.0b1 open
C11-52 Inconsistency in CORBA 2.0 C mapping C 1.0b1 open
C11-47 Example inconsistent with table 20 and table 21 C 1.0b1 open
C11-46 Seq buffer allocation C 1.0b1 open
C11-51 CORBA_string is not defined C 1.0b1 open
C11-50 No defined value for CORBA_OBJECT_NIL C 1.0b1 open
C11-49 Delete 14.17 para 1 C 1.0b1 open
C11-48 Initial state of out parameter pointers C 1.0b1 open
C11-45 release flag & returned data C 1.0b1 open
C11-4 Pseudo-Object underspecification C 1.0b1 open
C11-3 C Language header question C 1.0b1 open
C11-5 Inappropriate information (Sect. 14.23. last paragraph C 1.0b1 open
C11-1 Inout sequence/any behavior with oversized return values C 1.0b1 open
C11-2 Wrong placement of asterics in table C 1.0b1 open
C11-21 memory allocation functions C 1.0b1 open
C11-20 When MUST _buffer of sequence be allocated with _allocbuf C 1.0b1 open
C11-28 Exception release function C 1.0b1 open
C11-27 Exception stringification C 1.0b1 open
C11-25 Sequence buffer management C 1.0b1 open
C11-24 Sequence behavior C 1.0b1 open
C11-31 Minor field of system exceptions C 1.0b1 open
C11-30 Exception identification C 1.0b1 open
C11-26 Scoped sequence naming C 1.0b1 open
C11-22 memory release functions C 1.0b1 open
C11-23 mapping for sequences C 1.0b1 open
C11-29 CORBA_Environment initialization C 1.0b1 open
C11-19 CORBA_sequence_long C 1.0b1 open
CTS213-2 Usage Context Binding Inappropriately Expressed CTS2 1.0 open
CTS213-3 Using enumerations instead of using code systems CTS2 1.0 open
CTS213-1 CTS2: Documentation is incorrect in SpecificEntityList class CTS2 1.1 open
CTS213-11 CTS2: ConceptDomain Binding has no property attribute CTS2 1.1 open
CTS213-10 CTS2: Children/Descendants use inconsistent with Value Set CTS2 1.1 open
CTS213-9 CTS2: SpecificEntityList description is incorrect CTS2 1.1 open
CTS213-12 CTS2: EntityDescription lacks workflow status entry CTS2 1.1 open
CTS213-8 CTS2: "readContext" missing on ResolvedValueSetResolution functions CTS2 1.0 open
CTS213-4 AssociationQueryServices WSDL corrections CTS2 1.0b1 open
CTS213-5 CTS2: Wrong type in CompleteValueSetReference (ValueSetDefinition.xsd) CTS2 1.1 open
CTS213-6 CTS2: ValueSetDefinitionListEntry in ValueSetDefinition.xsd has wrong cardinality CTS2 1.1 open
CTS213-7 CTS2: ResourceList entries have double "entry" items CTS2 1.1 open

Issues Descriptions

Recommended Additions

  • Key: CSRM11-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Daniel Brookshier)
  • Summary:

    To make the case for updating CSRM stereotypes. Once agreement is reached, updates to the CSRM Specification will be developed.
    This is a big deal and needs lots of discussion.

    Figures 1 lists CSRM element stereotypes. Black font denotes current baseline as captured in the normative CSRM Profile. Blue font denotes recommended additions.

    Figure 2 lists requirement elements related properties that are part of the SysML language.

    Figure 3 illustrates one of many ways to establish relationships between the mission stakeholders, requirements, technical measures, and use cases stereotypes. These stereotypes are denoted by italicized font in Figure 1.
    The relationships are captured in the element specifications and are displayed and maintained in diagrams and tables as shown in Figure 1.
    Object Constraint Language

    There has been discussion about codifying the allowable relationships using Object Constraint Language (OCL). OCL is a declarative language describing rules applying to Unified Modeling Language (UML) models. For example, a refine relationship can exist between a requirement. and any other model element, whereas a derive relationship can only exist between requirements.

    That could be done founded on the examples in Figure 3. This would be of limited benefit. A mission team will be using the stereotypes and relationships best suited to their mission and the stereotypes in Figure 3 are very limited as compared to Figure 1.

    A case could be made to established relationships for the stereotypes in Figure 1. But that is out-of-Scope for the SSWG CSRM effort.

    An Issue that Needs Resolution.

    The intent of defining addition stereotypes as shown in Figure 1 is to provide stereotypes for a variety of mission architectures. However, several of the stereotypes are identified as CubeSat stereotypes. But they are not unique to CubeSats. The only thing that makes a model a CubeSat model is the incorporation of a CubeSat form factor such as the Cal Poly CubeSat Design Specification.

    My recommendation is to rename the stereotypes as show in Table 1 below.

    Table 1. Renaming of Stereotypes (Proposed name changes from Figure 1)
    CubeSatRequirement SatelliteRequirement
    CubeSatSubsystemRequirement SatelliteSubsystemRequirement
    CubeSatComponentRequirement SatelliteComponentRequirement
    CubeSatUseCase SatelliteUseCase
    CubeSatSubsystemUseCase SatelliteSubsystemUseCase
  • Reported: CSRM 1.0a1 — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:21 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 01:06 GMT
  • Attachments:

Icons for profile

  • Key: CSRM11-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Daniel Brookshier)
  • Summary:

    The original icons used for stereotypes in the profile were drafts and need to be replaced with better versions. The icons also need to be delivered as SVG.

    The document does not currently show these icons, so diagrams need to be updated or an appendix added to the icons.
  • Reported: CSRM 1.0b1 — Fri, 18 Mar 2022 21:30 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 01:06 GMT

Add constraints to aid in correctness of profile useage

  • Key: CSRM11-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Daniel Brookshier)
  • Summary:

    Constraints should be added to aid in the creating of correct models. For example, an MoE needs to be related to a moeRequirement which in turn is refined by a moeSpecification.

    In addition, by categorization and content of warings and error of the constraints, we could add hints for new users of minimal and advanced concepts.
  • Reported: CSRM 1.0b1 — Fri, 18 Mar 2022 22:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 01:06 GMT

Create examples of use of the profile

  • Key: CSRM11-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Daniel Brookshier)
  • Summary:

    Originally the first versions of CSRM had examples. However, when the spec was reduced to a profile, the examples were removed. Because of some of the changes, not all examples are viable, so it is proposed we create new examples. Dave Kaslow also requested that the examples be categorized as a simplified and expert use of the profile to aid adoption by students.
  • Reported: CSRM 1.0b1 — Fri, 18 Mar 2022 22:08 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 01:06 GMT
  • Attachments:

Add && setter

  • Key: CPP1117-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    For the optional mapping example a `void age(IDL::optional<float>&&)` is lacking, like described for some types in chapter 6.14
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Tue, 31 Oct 2023 10:14 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 16:01 GMT

Formatting c++/idl in text

  • Key: CPP1117-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Within the text of chapter 6.31/6.32 (IDL4) all C++/IDL should use a different font to make it clear it is code, just as in the other chapters.

  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Tue, 31 Oct 2023 08:19 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 16:00 GMT

Fix bitset mapping

  • Key: CPP1117-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    For anyone using the class mapping of a structure the spec should also provide a class mapping for a bitset, that way they have a consistent API. Also why is a inherited bitset not mapped to C++ inheritance, by removing the inheritance the inheritance relation can't be used in C++ also
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Tue, 22 Aug 2023 07:26 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 22:38 GMT

Use Semantic Versioning for Version Number of Messages

  • Key: C2MS11-190
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    This is one for C2MS 2.0. Capturing it here, because this is the only avenue to enter issues at present.

    Instead of a F32 for version number, which then uses a year, like 2024.0, we should change this to a formatted string that uses Semantic Versioning, with a string that looks like the following:

    MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH

    Examples: "2.0.0", "2.1.1"

    Note that this means changing the base type and the meaning of the current version numbers.

    Note, too, that this shouldn't simply be type STRING, but should be something like VERSION-STR with the format defined by C2MS.

    Also, consider getting rid of the separate header version and message content version. This is just something to bring up to the group.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 27 Sep 2023 19:53 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 20:24 GMT

Remove the Req/Resp/Pub MEP

  • Key: C2MS11-192
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    In C2MS2.0, we need to revisit the Req/Resp/Pub MEP, as is the same with MVAL Req, followed by an MVAL Resp, followed by an indefinite number and duration of MVAL Data Messages.

    This should really be either a standard Pub-Sub construct or should just be a simple req/response.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 27 Sep 2023 20:23 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 20:23 GMT

Remove XSDs as Normative Documents

  • Key: C2MS11-191
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Some XSDs were provided by NASA when v1.0 was created. However, these are only useful in a PSM for XML and should not be considered normative for the PIM. We don't have any intention to maintain/update these, so they should be removed. If NASA wants to create and deliver these to users, that is fine, but the OMG should not be the broker for these files.

    See the listing of "Normative Documents" here: https://www.omg.org/spec/C2MS/1.0
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 27 Sep 2023 20:21 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 20:21 GMT

Add a section describing expected use

  • Key: C2MS11-189
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    This is for 1.2, but have to enter it in 1.1 as that is the only current jira project. I expect it to be deferred, but think it should be done in 1.2.

    There is frequently confusion about how C2MS should be used. Normal use patterns are not described in the C2MS document, and this would be useful to add as a guide to users. This is especially true when C2MS is used in an enterprise environment, because common interpretation is critical.

    The idea is to communicate context for how C2MS has been created and how it is expected to be used.

    This could be in the form of a section called "System Architecture", "Guidance", "User Guide", or something like that.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 27 Sep 2023 19:36 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 19:36 GMT

Several OMG task forces have a need for a common ontology for quantities and units

  • Key: COMMONS11-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    A preliminary quantities and units ontology was developed for FIBO for use with commodities. Several other groups at OMG need this ontology, as do external users of the Commons library. The ontology should be mappable to the SysML v2 library so that we can generate the individuals in that library for use in knowledge graph applications. It should also be consistent, to the degree possible, with the latest changes to the VIM, with BIPM requirements, and with ISO 11240 for use in the pharmaceutical domain.

    There is a dependency in the quantities and units ontology on a small documents ontology, to provide the reference documentation for certain units. This ontology is relatively small, however, and can easily be mapped to other ontologies defining documents.

  • Reported: COMMONS 1.0b2 — Fri, 16 Jun 2023 20:52 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 00:39 GMT
  • Attachments:

Several OMG and external projects need a pattern for representing parties, the roles that they play and situations in which they are involved in

  • Key: COMMONS11-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    A situation is a complex, typically time-bound, setting, state of being, or relationship that is relatively stable for some period of time. An ontology defining such situations, including the complex property chains that link the actors and undergoers in such situations to the roles that they play is essential in finance, pharma, retail, robotics, and many other industries.

    A well-tested ontology that describes these patterns would be a useful addition to the Commons library. In addition, this ontology (and the new composition ontology on which it depends) is urgently needed for the Robotics Service Ontology (RoSO), whose planned revised submission is planned for September 2023.

    Note that the resolution of this issue requires the ontology added under COMMONS-11-4.
  • Reported: COMMONS 1.0b2 — Sat, 5 Aug 2023 22:53 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 00:39 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need to add start and end time and explicit time period in Commons

Rename the new composites ontology to roles and compositions

  • Key: COMMONS11-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    After additional review, RTF members suggested that a better name for the ontology would be roles and compositions. Other feedback identified a typo, suggested that we add the notion of independent identity in the definition of composition for clarification, and remove the functional axiom on the property isPlayedBy, which might overly constrain its utility.
  • Reported: COMMONS 1.0b2 — Thu, 17 Aug 2023 20:56 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 01:04 GMT
  • Attachments:

bit_bound

  • Key: CPP1117-14
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The spec defines the type trait bit_bound as `std::integral_constant<uint32_t, b>`, but as bit_bound is maximal of 64, this could be `std::integral_constant<uint8_t, b>`
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Mon, 7 Aug 2023 07:29 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:33 GMT

Improve bitmask mapping

  • Key: CPP1117-10
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The bitmask mapping is very basic, it doesn't give any type safety or more modern API. The spec should be improved, the <X>Bits type should be removed, only one type should be used. Also when there are multiple bitmasks with the same bitfield name they could result in a name clash. Maybe map to a enum class and add the operators ~,|,^,& for the enum class as inline operations to modify the enum class as a bitmask. At that moment the Bit type can be removed.

    When time permits I will make a proof of concept for TAOX11
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Mon, 31 Jul 2023 06:55 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:33 GMT

Missing annotation mapping

  • Key: CPP1117-13
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The spec should mention how the IDL4-mentioned annotations impact the mapping, I think the spec should list at least @value, @default_literal, @default, @range @min @max @bit_bound @external

    See IDL4 to CPP and the IDL4 spec itself
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Fri, 4 Aug 2023 07:01 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:33 GMT

Change struct VariableExt constructor

  • Key: CPP1117-11
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Instead of `VariableExt(const Variable&, bool);` it should be `VariableExt(Variable, bool);` so that in the implementation we can use std::move, this is as all complex types are passed into the constructor of a struct
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:42 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:33 GMT

Add bit_bound/underlying_type for enum traits

  • Key: CPP1117-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The bit_bound annotation can be applied to the enum, so the bit_bound and underlying_type traits should also be added to the enum
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:47 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:33 GMT

Incorrect constructor referenced in Fixed description

  • Key: CPP1117-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    This chapter says:

    The Fixed(std::string&) constructor converts a string representation of a fixed-point literal, with an optional leading sign (+ or -) and an optional trailing ‘d’ or ‘D’, into a real fixed-point value.

    But there is no constructor that accepts a non-const std::string&, the text should say

    The Fixed(const std::string&) constructor converts a string representation of a
    fixed-point literal, with an optional leading sign (+ or -) and an optional trailing ‘d’ or ‘D’, into a real fixed-point value.
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Tue, 10 Jan 2023 15:56 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:33 GMT

Typo

  • Key: CPP1117-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Double "to to" in the first sentence:

    IDL bitset types are mapped to to C++ structs that meet the C++11 requirements for aggregate initialization.

    Should be

    IDL bitset types are mapped to C++ structs that meet the C++11 requirements for aggregate initialization.
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:54 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:33 GMT

Missing description related to union member modifier

  • Key: CPP1117-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    In the specification an addition was made about the default argument when the union member has multiple legal discriminator values:

    Union members associated with the "default" label and those associated with multiple labels may have multiple legal discriminator values. For these members, the modifiers (those that return void) have a second parameter which has the discriminator's type. This parameter has a default argument. For members associated with multiple labels, the value of the default argument is the value of the case label that appears first in IDL. For members associated with the default label, the value of the default argument is an implementation-defined value that selects the member.

    There is nothing in the text that describes what happens when a discriminator value is passed which doesn't belong to the member, this is implicitly in the example code further down "u.obj(a, 2)", but this should be explicit in the text also, passing a not allowed discriminator should result in a BAD_PARAM exception
  • Reported: CPP11 1.6b1 — Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:20 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:33 GMT

ConfigValues to a std map

  • Key: CORBA35-448
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    It would be a much easier API for the user when ConfigValues would be a IDL map of FeatureName and a any
  • Reported: CORBA 3.4 — Wed, 16 Aug 2023 07:27 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 20:14 GMT

C2INav Model refers to an old OARIS Common Types package

  • Key: OARIS21-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Simon Mettrick)
  • Summary:

    The C2INav Model refers to a package defined by OARIS 1.1.
    OARIS 2.0 is about to be published and there are 2.1 RTF & 3.0 FTF in progress.
  • Reported: C2INAV 1.0 — Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 00:18 GMT

Several OMG and external projects need a pattern for representing compositions

  • Key: COMMONS11-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In pharmaceuticals and other industries, products are often composed of other things. The 'recipe' for manufacturing a product includes various ingredients, which are roles that substances, components. or other things take on in the context of that product.

    Further, there are cases where the composition of some product is context specific. Product documentation may be jurisdictionally defined due to regulatory constraints, for example. The representation of some ingredients in certain pharmaceutical products, including the way these elements are described on packaging, is jurisdiction specific, even thought the product itself has exactly the same composition via exactly the same manufacturing processes world wide.

    A general pattern for this kind of composition would be quite useful for a number of domain areas and is a good candidate for inclusions in the Commons library.
  • Reported: COMMONS 1.0b2 — Sat, 5 Aug 2023 21:14 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 00:04 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need an ontology representing multidimensional arrays

  • Key: COMMONS11-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    This is needed for representation of tensor and vector quantities for the quantities and units ontology, and for representation of certain machine learning algorithms, among other requirements.
  • Reported: COMMONS 1.0b2 — Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:03 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 00:04 GMT

Consolidate all Table and Model Figure changes into one Issue

  • Key: C2MS11-187
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Because many separate changes have been made in the [MESSAGE-TYPE] Message Additional Information Tables and in the [MESSAGE-TYPE] Message Contents (model) Figures, this issue seeks to consolidate all such changes together for final review. Changes here should be considered, therefore, to supersede all other C2MS 1.1 changes to the specific tables and figures enclosed in this issue.

    All such tables/figures are in Chapter 8 PIM - Message Definitions.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Fri, 18 Aug 2023 23:30 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 23:54 GMT

C2MS Database Query (DBQUERY) messages

  • Key: C2MS11-45
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    Add the DBQUERY messages that were defined by NASA to the formal specification.

    These messages are listed as being part of the OMG specification here:
    https://software.nasa.gov/software/GSC-18536-1

    "A Graphics User Interface (GUI) based desktop viewer for XML Telemetry and Command Exchange (XTCE) files which allows some editing of the various XTCE properties of that open file, and then allows saving the updated information back to file. It includes a Goddard Mission Services Evolution Center (GMSEC) GMSEC Search XTCE (GSX) connector to support some GMSEC/ (Command and Control Message Specification) C2MS Database Query (DBQUERY) messages to search for some XTCE information which is then sent over GMSEC bus to the initiator of the search request."
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:09 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:49 GMT

Consider forcing a limited subscription

  • Key: C2MS11-83
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    In the case of Mnemonic Value Request Message and Archive Mnemonic Value Request Message, the requestor can specify a STOP-TIME or DURATION, but both are optional. If neither is specified, the subscription is open-ended with no knowable end, until the requestor sends a 'STOP' message. In order to avoid infinite fulfillment of a subscription to a potentially lost requestor, we could enforce a concept that a requestor must specify either a STOP-TIME or Duration.

    In practice, this is an inadequate requirement, since a caller could specify a very long duration, like 1000 years, and circumvent the desire of this issue.

    However, this is issue simply captures the idea to promote further discussion.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:15 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 15:24 GMT
  • Attachments:

Deprecate fields duplicated between C2MS Messages and the Message Envelope

  • Key: C2MS11-182
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    With the advent of the C2MS Message Envelope, some tracking or meta-data fields exist in both the new Message Envelope and in the already-existing C2MS Message. For now, it is the case that we want to leave fields in the C2MS message and encourage migration toward Message Envelope usage. In a follow-on release, the duplicated fields should be deprecated in the C2MS Message.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Sat, 22 Jul 2023 20:27 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 00:00 GMT

Normalize the "Additional Information" Tables Showing Fields for Messages

  • Key: C2MS11-178
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Changes need to be made to the "Additional Information" tables that contain Field listing for each message. The necessary changes are to provide complete information and to unify the names of the column headers across all messages.

    Should add a type column to the fields table "Additional Info". Currently, the only indicator of type is in the UML diagram. Because of this, it is often the case that a reader of the table, must glance at the UML diagram in addition to reading the table.

    Additionally, the tables are not uniform within the 1.0 document. Some use "Value" for a certain column header, while others use "Value/Description". To resolve this, it would be useful to use "Value" in every table and to rename the current "Notes" column to "Description" which is more accurate.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:23 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 00:00 GMT

Remove Superfluous Fields from Header and Envelope

  • Key: C2MS11-184
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Many fields in the C2MS Header (which have of necessity also been put in the C2MS Envelope) should be evaluated for change or removal in the next major release. Change to be made in both C2MS Message and C2MS Envelope. Examples:

    • ROLE should be renamed COMPONENT-ROLE to avoid confusion with user role (authorization).
    • USER-NAME should be removed. This seems to be only debug info and does not have anything to do with authentication/authorization. The new fields SENDER-IDENTITY and SENDER-ACCESS in the envelope provide that.
    • FACILITY/NODE/PROCESS-ID/CONNECTION-ID are candidates for removal. These seem only valuable for debugging. Debug info doesn't belong in a standard, IMO.
    • CONNECTION-ID should be removed. This is definitely only valuable for debugging.
    • MW-INFO - no idea why this is there. Probably need a use case or example of what this is used for, but it doesn't seem to belong.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:30 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 00:00 GMT

Align TLM Messages against Subject Elements and Fields

  • Key: C2MS11-163
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Issue C2MS11-54, already approved, has removed two subject elements that didn't belong in Telemetry TDM Frame Message. In fact, there are many more similar irregularities across all the Telemetry messages.

    The needed changes are described below, but also shown in the attachment (original and revised) that shows the fields and subject elements as they exist today and should be after corrected.

    • Add a new message type: Telemetry CCSDS CADU Message
    • Rename Telemetry CCSDS Frame Message to Telemetry CCSDS Transfer Frame Message
    • APID should be both a subject element and field in Telemetry CCSDS Packet, and in no other TLM messages.
    • VCID should be both a subject element and field in Telemetry CCSDS Packet and Telemetry CCSDS Transfer Frame, and in no other TLM messages
    • PHY-CHAN should be a field in the new Telemetry CCSDS CADU Message, with no subject element for it (Note that this message won't have APID, VCID or SCID represented.
    • Add SCID as a subject element and field in Telemetry CCSDS Packet and Telemetry CCSDS Transfer Frame messages
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:10 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 00:00 GMT
  • Attachments:

At Next Major Revision: Evalutate all Required/Optional/Dependent states for consistency

  • Key: C2MS11-177
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Some fields and message elements that should be required are listed as optional. For example, in the Telemetry CCSDS Packet Message, ME SCID was added in 1.1, so had to me marked optional, but it should be required. APID already existed in that message as a Message Element, but not as a field, so whereas the ME is required, the field had to be made optional (for backward compatibility).

    Additionally, in section 6.2.2 Format of C2MS Subject Names, there is a description that says, "If an element is required but not applicable for that mission or to that type of message, the publisher inserts “FILL” (no quotes) for that element." However, this should be cleaned up. If a field is required it should be required, if not, then it should not be required. Need a run through the messages to see how this can be improved.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Sun, 16 Jul 2023 21:35 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 00:00 GMT

At Next Major Revision: Order MEs and Fields Consistently

  • Key: C2MS11-176
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Some Message Elements and Fields are in different order from message to message. The fields are just a listing so not as important, but the MEs are order-dependent. One example of how this is an issue is that the Telemetry CCSDS Packet Message added a new ME, but this had to go to the end (ME6) because of backward compatibility. This creates a strange ordering with VCID, APID, Collection Point, SCID. This is just one example, but the need is to evaluate all the MEs and fields and see if any need to be moved to make messages more uniform in structure.

    Additionally, there are cases where some MEs have been removed between 1.0 and 1.x, leaving "not used"/"FILL" in the corresponding positions of MEs and these need cleaning up.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Sun, 16 Jul 2023 21:29 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 00:00 GMT

Create an optional Message Envelope to hold Tracking Fields

  • Key: C2MS11-130
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Tracking fields do not specifically belong in a C2MS Message. Rather, there should be a message envelope that contains these fields for the purpose of delivering a contained C2MS message. This "Message Envelope" is the logical place for managing tracking fields and other metadata related to, but not part of a C2MS message body.

    This is clear when considering tracking fields, MW-INFO and CONNECTION-ID, which are message-bus handling constructs and have no meaning related to C2 of a satellite.

    Note that this concept was originally moved to C2MQ. However, because C2MQ is a long way away and because message envelope is a useful construct within C2MS, it was determined at the Austin (Dec, 2023) C2MS meeting to bring this back in to C2MS and take the envelope concept out of C2MQ (leaving it to cover service-based interactions outside of the messages). Therefore, this is a re-entry of the envelope mechanism.

    As part of this effort, we should do the following:

    Add fields that allow encryption of content sections of the C2MS message body as well as message signatures or message authentication codes. This would not assume or provide any particular mechanism to encrypt/sign, but would allow for tracking of these fields to aid usage.

    The benefit of doing this is to allow the Mission to determine levels of security and secure componentry, but to use the message definition as a way to track this information.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 7 Feb 2023 23:08 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 00:00 GMT
  • Attachments:

Enumeration value ESTIMATED used twice in the same package

  • Key: C2INAV13-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Simon Mettrick)
  • Summary:

    Using the value ESTIMATED for both accuracy_derivation_type and navigation_derivation_kind_type causes problems in some programming languages; it is also better practice to be more descriptive.
  • Reported: C2INAV 1.2b1 — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:26 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:37 GMT

Enumeration value ESTIMATED used twice in the same package

  • Key: C2INAV13-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Simon Mettrick)
  • Summary:

    Using the value ESTIMATED in accuracy_derivation_type and navigation_derivation_kind_type causes problems when mapped to some programming languages; it is also better practice to be more descriptive.
  • Reported: C2INAV 1.2b1 — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:24 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:37 GMT

Replace simple service REQ/RESP

  • Key: C2MS11-170
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Replace simple service REQ/RESP and deprecate current simple service messages.

    Numerous issues are present with the current Simple Service REQ/RESP Messages. These include:

    • Destination Component is overloaded with two different meanings, depending on use.
    • Using Destination Component for SERVICE-NAME essentially requires the mission to establish a naming convention to separate SERVICE-NAME from DESTINATION-COMPONENT strings in order to tell the difference between them.
    • The Request can include a SERVICE-GROUP to further the SERVICE-NAME, sort of like namespacing, but this SERVICE-GROUP is not included in the Response message, which means that if needed in the Request, it is not possible to correctly correlate a Response to a Request.
    • The paradigm does not include a publish MEP natively, so at some point in the past, GMSEC/C2MS declared that a Request Message could be used to publish information, completely outside the Req/Resp MEP.
    • Current usage is to submit a request and then to have the response message indicate either the DESTINATION-COMPONENT of the original requestor or, alternately, the SERVICE-NAME associated with the original request. In keeping with other response messages, it should probably be just the DESTINATION-COMPONENT. It doesn't really need to have the option to use SERVICE-NAME, because the requestor is known. It also creates an odd and confusing alternate use, where in the current mode, the DESTINATION-COMPONENT is the requestor, but the SERVICE-NAME is related to the provider.

    Together, this makes the Simple Service Messages hopelessly tangled. The effort here is to start from scratch, deprecate the existing messages and move forward with something more workable.

    In this there are two factors that need consideration:

    • The Simple Service (and its replacement) should be intended for emerging services that go online in an existing domain, but that have not yet been able to establish their own set of dedicated C2MS-derived messages. It should not be the case that services live forever on this Simple Service (or replacement) mechanism.
    • The C2MS Messages themselves, perhaps in 2.0? should have a mechanism for extension without having to define new messages types. In other words, a service provider should be able to create a C2MS message that is simply expanded by what the service provider needs. If this can be accomplished, the Simple Service Paradigm is greatly aided, either by providing an easier path to offload the temporary use of Simple Service, or even by obviating the need for Simple Service.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:51 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT

Header UNIQUE-ID is Type "Header String"

  • Key: C2MS11-143
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    UNIQUE-ID in the Header is of type Header String (to be Subject Token String due to C2MS11-49). According to table 8-3: "Globally unique ID – reserved for use by implementation (PSM)". Note that a "Header String" is limited to upper and lower alphanumeric plus '-' and '_'. Recommendation of C2MS is that best practice is to keep Header String to no more than 12 characters.

    So, Header String or Subject Token String isn't the right type.

    I think we need to know what GMSEC uses for a type of UNIQUE-ID. But, it possible, it would be good if it was a GUID, relating to C2MS11-16.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Sat, 18 Mar 2023 22:08 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT
  • Attachments:

Clarify Text Associated with Simple Service Req/Resp

  • Key: C2MS11-169
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    After discussion in C2MS RTF in Orlando 2023 Tech Meetings, we determined to clarify or clean up some text with Simple Service Request and Response messages as follows:

    • Say it’s not intended to be long-term but for quick on-boarding. Services meant for long-term use should create their own message set apart from Simple Service
    • Say that we intend to rework or replace Simple Service at some point in a future release.
    • Consider removing text about using it for a publish mode

    Note that the response message as it is lacks the Service-Group that was specified in the request message. This lack makes it impossible to correctly correlate a response to a request that did specify Service-Group. However, because we intend to 'rework' these messages in a future release, we won't make this change at present.

    A related issue will be created to replace simple service and deprecate current simple service, but will be deferred to later.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:37 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT

PROD message, add fields PROD_SUBTYPE

  • Key: C2MS11-110
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Kevin Rice)
  • Summary:

    There are n+2 number of optional elements between ME4 and ME7. These fields map the field(s) PROD-SUBTYPE.n.NAME.
    API Workaround: API only maps the first two of these product subtypes, and the user will have set subject if they want more.
    Required C2MS Spec changes: Ditch the n+2 logic in the middle of a message subject and only display the first two PROD-SUBTYPE values in the subject (or FILL if not used). A subject that can have dynamically shifting positions of its subject elements has serious implications on compatibility.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:10 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT

Larger Data Types

  • Key: C2MS11-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    From Justin: In the current specification, RAW-VALUE is limited to a 32-bit integer and EU-VALUE is limited to 64-bit float (i.e., double). These data types should be changed to allow larger data types to be represented (at a minimum, 64-bit integer should be supported throughout). May need a separate field to indicate the type of data in these fields.

    [NOTE: the reason for deferment is simply say making the RAW-VALUE a 64 bit and the EU-VALUE 128-bit float falls outside of hardware support and programming language support -- and adding a DATA-TYPE field to support the specification of any valid c2ms data-type in either field seems like a big change that should be considered more fully.]

    The current spec supports a RAW-VALUE and EU-VALUE (converted/calibrated) fields. Currently the RAW one is a 32-bit signed integer and the EU one is a double (64-bit). To support a broader value type and range, this change adds a RAW-VALUE-TYPE and an EU-VALUE-TYPE to any message these fields are in. In some cases, if the message has both a RAW and EU value, these could in some cases be identical. Additional optional (special case) fields are also added RAW-VALUE-LENGTH and EU-VALUE-LENGTH, these two are discussed below.

    The RAW-VALUE-TYPE and EU-VALUE-TYPE would be one of the C2MS data-types and be valid for all samples in the message. Hence, they are only specified once per message.

    For example, a typical combination might be: RAW-VALUE-TYPE=I32, EU-VALUE-TYPE=F64 for numeric calibrated telemetered values.

    The main reason in some cases to preserve both the RAW and the EU value is that in some cases there's a need to re-calibrate existing values and the raw can then be used to do that... [are there any others?]

    [It's worth noting that RAW here may mean literally bit-by-bit what's in the packet or it could mean "host corrected" (byte swapped) but without calibration -- we should sort that out. In fact, C2MS does not say that I can tell ... I'm aware that some orgs support the notion of raw from the packet, host-converted (byte/bit corrected), and fully calibrated) in which case within discussion we may want to have 3 fields, which seems excessive. I think I prefer 'host-corrected' for the raw, as we can only do so much, and some folks might not have the truly raw bits available anyway...]

    RAW-FIELD-TYPE and EU-TYPE-TYPE are of type String. The legal values are specified in table 8.1 column Field-type. Note that these should probably be mixed character legal in these fields.

    Two OPTIONAL fields are available for type binary (blob) and variable. These types SHALL supply RAW-VALUE-LENGTH and EU-VALUE-LENGTH which are both I32 and specify the number of bytes for either field value. Negative values are illegal. From an implementation point of view in regard to these variable length fields, that messages beyond a few megabytes are likely not supported.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Sat, 21 Mar 2020 15:48 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT

C2MS: Optional Transfer Frame/Packet attributes should be described in schema

  • Key: C2MS11-42
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    Non-self-describing CCSDS attributes for either transfer frames or space packets should be provided as dependent attributes of the frame messages. This would enable full integration between a sender and receiver. Right now, whether these optional fields are provided is unknown, causing the proper rendering of the frame to not be possible without outside negotiation (beyond the specification).

    Examples:

    Frame Header Error Control of the AOS transfer frame (AOS Space Data Link Protocol (ccsds.org)), where nothing prior to it in the definition specifies whether it is there or not:

    4.1.2.6 Frame Header Error Control
    4.1.2.6.1 If implemented, Bits 48-63 of the Transfer Frame Primary Header shall contain the Frame Header Error Control. NOTE – The 10-bit Master Channel Identifier, the 6-bit Virtual Channel Identifier, and the 8-bit Signaling Field may all be protected by an optional error detecting and correcting code, whose check symbols are contained within this 16-bit field.
    4.1.2.6.2 The presence or absence of the optional Frame Header Error Control shall be established by management.
    4.1.2.6.3 If present, the Frame Header Error Control shall exist in every Transfer Frame transmitted within the same Physical Channel.

    Space Packets and the secondary header (Space Packet Protocol (ccsds.org)): A space packet might have a secondary header with a variable length time code, a variable length ancillary data field, or both. A space packet might have a secondary header, a user data field, or both. The length is not specified for any of them. When present, the format of the time code can be one of several options, but which one is not specified:

    4.1.3.3.3 Secondary Header Flag 4.1.3.3.3.1 Bit 4 of the Packet Primary Header shall contain the Secondary Header Flag. 4.1.3.3.3.2 The Secondary Header Flag shall indicate the presence or absence of the Packet Secondary Header within this Space Packet. It shall be ‘1’ if a Packet Secondary Header is present; it shall be ‘0’ if a Packet Secondary Header is not present. 4.1.3.3.3.3 The Secondary Header Flag shall be static with respect to the APID and managed data path throughout a Mission Phase. 4.1.3.3.3.4 The Secondary Header Flag shall be set to ‘0’ for Idle Packets

    4.1.4.2.1.5 If present, the Packet Secondary Header shall consist of either: a) a Time Code Field (variable length) only; b) an Ancillary Data Field (variable length) only; or c) a Time Code Field followed by an Ancillary Data Field. 4.1.4.2.1.6 The chosen option shall remain static for a specific managed data path throughout all Mission Phases. NOTE – The format of the Packet Secondary Header is shown in figure 4-3. ANCILLARY DATA FIELD (optional) variable PACKET SECONDARY HEADER TIME CODE FIELD (optional) variable Figure 4-3: Packet Secondary Header

    4.1.4.2.2 Time Code Field 4.1.4.2.2.1 If present, the Time Code Field shall consist of an integral number of octets. 4.1.4.2.2.2 The Time Code Field shall consist of one of the CCSDS segmented binary or unsegmented binary time codes specified in reference [3].CCSDS RECOMMENDED STANDARD FOR SPACE PACKET PROTOCOL CCSDS 133.0-B-2 Page 4-8 June 2020 NOTE – The time codes defined in reference [3] consist of an optional P-Field (Preamble Field), which identifies the time code and its characteristics and a mandatory T[1]Field (Time Field). Examples of time codes are CCSDS Unsegmented Time Code and CCSDS Day Segmented Time Code. Examples of characteristics are ambiguity period, epoch, length, and resolution. 4.1.4.2.2.3 The time code selected shall be fixed for a given managed data path throughout all Mission Phases. 4.1.4.2.2.4 If the characteristics of the chosen time code are fixed, the corresponding P[1]field (as described in reference [3]) need not be present. If the characteristics are allowed to change, the P-field shall be present so as to identify the changes. 4.1.4.2.2.5 The presence or absence of the P-field in the Time Code Field shall be fixed for a given managed data path throughout all Mission Phases. If present, it shall immediately precede the T-field that is defined in reference [3]

    4.1.4.3 User Data Field 4.1.4.3.1 If present, the User Data Field shall follow, without gap, either the Packet Secondary Header (if a Packet Secondary Header is present) or the Packet Primary Header (if a Packet Secondary Header is not present). 4.1.4.3.2 The User Data Field shall be mandatory if a Packet Secondary Header is not present; otherwise, it is optional. 4.1.4.3.3 If present, the User Data Field shall consist of an integral number of octets. 4.1.4.3.4 If the Packet is not an Idle Packet, then the User Data Field shall contain application data supplied by the sending user. If the Packet is an Idle Packet, the User Data Field shall contain Idle Data. NOTE – The bit pattern of Idle Data is set by the mission and is not specified in this Recommended Standard

    4.1.4.3 User Data Field 4.1.4.3.1 If present, the User Data Field shall follow, without gap, either the Packet Secondary Header (if a Packet Secondary Header is present) or the Packet Primary Header (if a Packet Secondary Header is not present). 4.1.4.3.2 The User Data Field shall be mandatory if a Packet Secondary Header is not present; otherwise, it is optional. 4.1.4.3.3 If present, the User Data Field shall consist of an integral number of octets. 4.1.4.3.4 If the Packet is not an Idle Packet, then the User Data Field shall contain application data supplied by the sending user. If the Packet is an Idle Packet, the User Data Field shall contain Idle Data. NOTE – The bit pattern of Idle Data is set by the mission and is not specified in this Recommended Standard
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:26 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT

Consider a mechanism to request archived Commands and Events

  • Key: C2MS11-44
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    TLM and MVALs can be retrieved from the archive, but it would be useful to define a way to retrieve archived Commands and Events as well, since these represent, along with TLM, the SatOPs messages.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Fri, 10 Dec 2021 03:22 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT

REQUEST-ID field does not support usage as a GUID

  • Key: C2MS11-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    From Justin: The REQUEST-ID field was defined as a U16. Recommend this field be changed to be a string to allow it to be utilized as a GUID. This allows it to work better for transport of existing interfaces that utilize a GUID to ensure message uniqueness, especially when multiple instances of the application are running concurrently.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 19:11 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT
  • Attachments:

XML PSM recommended

  • Key: C2MS11-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    Due to lack of the ability to have multiple independent implementations of GMSEC due to its message-building API functions in source code, it would be appreciated if there were an XML PSM available. This would allow for an independent implementation apart from the single known implementation at this time. At this time, there is no known PSM that enables implementation of C2MS at this time that does not depend on FOSS or government-licensed IP.

    This is based on inputs from C2MS-2.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:07 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:36 GMT

C2INav Model refers to an old OARIS Common Types package

  • Key: C2INAV13-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Ollie Newman)
  • Summary:

    The C2INav Model refers to a package defined by OARIS 1.1.
    OARIS 2.0 is about to be published and there are 2.1 RTF & 3.0 FTF in progress.
  • Reported: C2INAV 1.2 — Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:09 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:09 GMT

Add support for IDL4 int8/uint8/map/bitset/bitfield/bitmask

  • Key: CORBA35-447
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    CORBA 3.4 should have support for int8/uint8/map/bitset/bitfield/bitmask/bitvalue for DynamicAny, DynamicSkeleton, Interface Repo, Any/TypeCode and other CORBA APIs related to types

  • Reported: CORBA 3.4 — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 13:56 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:18 GMT

Clarify how to specify array and aggregate parameters (MNEMONICs) in MVAL and related messages

  • Key: C2MS11-173
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Kevin Rice)
  • Summary:

    The text for MVAL and related messages doesn't explain or give examples of how to specify for example an array or record – for example a BATV[1] or something more complicated like: SBUS.STATUS.PFRAME[27].STACK_DEPTH.

    Any text addressing this should also discuss the XTCE repeat concept which the author of this issue believes today is handled by NUM-OF-SAMPLES.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 12 Jul 2023 19:02 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:14 GMT

Review and fix all uses of DESTINATION-COMPONENT in the Miscellaneous Elements of subjects

  • Key: C2MS11-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Review and fix all uses of DESTINATION-COMPONENT in the Miscellaneous Elements of subjects for all messages where that field is used. Also, see 2016 GMSEC ISD for discussion of destination component and add that back in to the description of Configuration Status Message. See pages 74 and 78.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:41 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:57 GMT

Using REQ Messages for 'Publish'

  • Key: C2MS11-47
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    The "Publish" MEP second paragraph talks about using either MSG or REQ messages as a means of publishing. I think this could use some revisiting.

    It seems on that a REQ message "may or may not require a response. For example, one component may request another component to take some action and does not need to know immediately if the action was successful or not." f(section 6.3.2.1, pg 15). This is then enabled by specifying a BOOLEAN value for "RESPONSE" indicating whether a reponse is expected in a REQ message.

    To me, it seems like not expecting a response when issuing a REQ message is a corner case. Even in the example above, how do I know that ANY component received the REQ? I would prefer to say that components that process a REQ message are expected to respond AT LEAST with a RESP Message acknowledging receipt. If the sender chooses not to look for one, fine, but it seems like an odd pattern to make a request and ignore whether anyone heard you.

    This would aid in simplifying the Publish MEP to reduce it to just MSG. Actually, if we don't do this, we need to fix the sequence diagram on pg 24, anyway, because as shown it's incorrect; requiring sending a MSG before sending a REQ. It's really meant to be either-or. So, if we remove REQ as a Publish mechanism, the diagram will be adjusted to be correct. If we don't remove it, we need to split the SD into two separate diagrams.

    With all this in mind, I'd suggest:

    • that the Publish MEP use only MSG Messages, which is what they are intended for
    • and stating that REQ messages expect a response, even if it is only an acknowledgement (this would also remove the RESPOSE:BOOLEAN field from REQ messages.
    • this results in modifying the Sequence Diagram for Publish MEP (Note that this diagram is actually incorrect, anyway, because as shown, it says that to Publish, the publisher sends a MSG and then a REQ.) At a minimum, this diagram needs to be fixed, even if we don't make the semantic changes described here.

    Note that if we remove "RESPONSE:BOOLEAN" concept, this affects the following:
    8.4.1.3 Directive Request Contents
    8.10.1.3 Command Request Message Contents
    8.12.1.3 Simple Service Request Message Contents

    Additionally, we'd need to look for scattered text in the spec that says REQ does not require a response.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:54 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:57 GMT
  • Attachments:

Text for AMVAL REQ references non-existing fields

  • Key: C2MS11-101
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    For the Archive Mnemonic Value Request Message, under the explanatory text, there is a paragraph stating:

    "Optionally, if known or applicable, the requestor can specify the file type and file attributes with the optional dependent fields under the Output Product Category and Output File Attributes sections."

    I'm not sure what this is referring to. There are no Product Category or Output File Attributes dependent fields in the Message. The terms "Output Product Category" and "Output File Attributes" occur in the document only in this paragraph.

    The text either needs to be clarified or removed.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 29 Jun 2022 13:05 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:57 GMT

Make all subjects be buildable from fields in the message

  • Key: C2MS11-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Almost all miscellaneous subject elements for messages are specified as mapping to fields in the message. But a few are not. For example, see the Miscellaneous Elements table 8-46 for the Control message. The elements DESTINATION_NODE and DESTINATION_FACILITY do not exist as fields in the message. (Note: it may be more appropriate to add some of these fields to the Message Header rather than many/most messages.) In this particular example, this may be resolved by C2MS11-28, but each message type would need to be evaluated to see what other subject elements are not mapped to fields.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:59 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:57 GMT
  • Attachments:

Time Type table clarification for the DDD portion

  • Key: C2MS11-27
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Document clarification: The DDD portion of the Time Type, as shown in table 8-2 on page 40, has a range of 1-365 (or 366). But when using a relative time (by preceding the value with a "+" or a "-"), the DDD portion can contain a zero value. Make this clear and add a couple more relative time examples.

    Consider replacing C2MS invented date format with RFC3339 or ISO8601 to include relative time.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:17 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:57 GMT

In message tables, rework the "value" column to allow for fixed values vs. default values

  • Key: C2MS11-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Many fields in many messages contain value information. Some of the values are defaults and some are intended to be constant. Also, this information is in the "notes" column. There should be a way to differentiate between fixed and default values more easily than reading the notes fields. Also, this will make encoding those attributes in the .xsd PSM easier.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:48 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:57 GMT

Create CMD-MNEMONIC Field in Command Request Message

  • Key: C2MS11-88
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    In the Command Request Message, the Binary "CMD-DATA" message contains the packet/fram/CLTU, etc, for all CMD-FORMAT types. However, if the CMD-FORMAT type is MNEMONIC this doesn't make as much sense.

    Suggestion here is to create a new field in Command Request Message, "CMD-MNEMONIC" as type STRING to hold the human-readable MNEMONIC for command lookup if the CMD-FORMAT is of type MNEMONIC.

    In this way, both CMD-DATA and CMD-MNEMONIC would be Dependent fields, with usage based on the contents of CMD-FORMAT.

    RTF proposed (Burlingame, 2022) to do a second message type for MNE types, with 0-n parameters, each parameter specifying a type. Mike to create proposal text.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:54 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 00:24 GMT

Update Text Associated with REQUEST-ID as Replacement Issue

  • Key: C2MS11-139
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    We have previously approved C2MS11-55 that changes the concept of REQUEST-ID as Replacement. After reviewing this change with the EGS Team, it is apparent that we could tighten up some of the text in the proposed change to make it more clear what are valid second-uses of REQUEST-ID and what are invalid, along with the expected response to an invalid use.

    It should be invalid in Replay Telemetry or MVAL Request to issue a start after a start has already been done using the same REQUEST-ID. In Replay Telemetry, we probably need to think about it. If an invalid re-use of REQUEST-ID is sent in a request message, an indicator should be returned in a response for Invalid Request.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 20:03 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 00:24 GMT

VCID and APID in Message Subject for TLMTDM Frame

  • Key: C2MS11-54
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    The Subject for TLMTDM Frame Messages includes the following:
    -ME3 = VCID
    -ME4 = APID

    However these fields:
    a) don't exist in the TLMTDM Frame Message, so can't be populated to the message subject,
    b) belong only to CCSDS frames, not TDM frames.

    These Message Subject Miscellaneous Elements should be removed and replaced with "FILL" to preserve ME5 as Collection Point.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Thu, 3 Mar 2022 22:57 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 00:24 GMT

Remove APID from TLMFRAME

  • Key: C2MS11-114
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Kevin Rice)
  • Summary:

    The APID is associated with a telemetry packet, not the frame.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:16 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 00:24 GMT

Remove APID from TLMPROC

  • Key: C2MS11-115
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Kevin Rice)
  • Summary:

    The APID is associated with packets, not the telemetry frame.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:17 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 00:24 GMT

Add field APID (and VCID) to Telemetry CCSDS Packet Message

  • Key: C2MS11-39
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    This value is used in the subject, so should be added to the message.
    (NOTE: do NOT add this field to the CCSDS Frame message; TBD for Processed Telemetry Message and TDM Frame message. Also, check the VC ID usage appropriateness in all 4 TLM messages.)

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:58 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 00:24 GMT
  • Attachments:

Levels of Indirection for passing COM types seem to be missing

  • Key: CORBA35-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 702
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Foretuit ( Daniel Foody)
  • Summary:

    Summary:

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Mon, 25 Aug 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 15:03 GMT

Reconsider Oneshot in MVAL Request/Response

  • Key: C2MS11-151
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Mnemonic Value Request Message and its corresponding Mnemonic Value Response Message utilize a concept called "ONESHOT" or "Oneshot". These are the only messages in C2MS that have this construct.

    This is described in Mnemonic Value Request Message as:
    "The Mnemonic Value Request Message is used to request one or more mnemonics either as a single sample ('Oneshot') or as a request to Start publishing the mnemonics continuously."

    and

    Mnemonic Value Response Message:
    "For a 'Oneshot' Mnemonic Value Request Message, the Mnemonic Value Response Message contains the values of the requested mnemonics and no further Mnemonic Value Data messages will be published."

    However, in a significant way, these statements conflict with the next line:
    "For a 'Start' Mnemonic Value Request Message, the Mnemonic Value Response Message contains the initial values of the requested mnemonics and subsequent occurrences of the mnemonics will be published via the Mnemonic Value Data Message."

    In other words, the Response Message will contain the initial set of data (current point values) in response to EITHER 'Start' or 'Oneshot'. The description says "either or" ("either as a single sample ('Oneshot') or as a request to Start publishing"), but the logical statement should be "yes and maybe" (Both Oneshot and Start will contain the initial set of data, but only Start will be followed with Mvals).

    The effect of this is that the MVAL Req/Resp works in a primary subscription-based manner or in a different manner when specifying ONESHOT.

    With this in place the MVAL Req/Resp sometimes follow the Request/Response Message Exchange Patter, and other times follow the Request/Response/Publish MEP. In fact, figure 8-19 Mnemonic Value Message Sequence Diagram illustrates the Request/Response/Publish MEP. It is not valid for the Request/Response MEP. No example of the Request/Response MEP is shown for this message.

    Furthermore, some fields are handled specially depending on which MEP is used. For example, it is stated in the spec that when using ONESHOT, the following fields are ignored in the Request:
    • PUBLISH-RATE
    • DURATION
    • MNEMONIC.n.CRITERIA
    • MNEMONIC.n.SAMPLE-RATE

    Meanwhile, in the Reponse, RESPONSE-STATUS field values 3 and 4, likely only apply to ONESHOT, while 1 likely only applies to non-ONESHOT. requests.

    This odd dual-purposing of these messages was all likely done at some point out of convenience of overloading existing messages rather than creating new messages that would have been a more coherent design.

    It has the effect, for a 'Start' of the consumer needing to read both the MVAL Return message for data and then a series of MVAL data message, rather than simply reading MVAL data messages.

    In order to remove this overload, I suggest one of the following:

    1 - deprecating ONESHOT and related fields in those messages and creating a new Message Type for retrieving current values. These could be called Mnemonic Current Value Request Message and Mnemonic Current Value Response Message.

    2 - removing the value fields from the Response Message above, then simply convert the ONESHOT to a form of Request/Response/Publish MEP in which only one publish happens, and then the subscription ends. Subscription termination is already part of the spec, because of DURATION. The way this would work is the requestor sends a request message marked for ONESHOT, the service sends a response message, the service sends a single Mnemonic Value Data Message, the subscription is terminated. In this way, Mvals are only communicated in one message: Mval Data Message, easing the burden for handling two message types.

    In a certain sense, I like the first option better, because it addresses the need to get current values using dedicated messages. However, the second approach is a much smaller change and represents a solution that is FAR more straight-forward than the way it is implemented today.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Thu, 23 Mar 2023 13:01 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT

Revisit SAMPLE-RATE

  • Key: C2MS11-137
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    C2MS11-56, already approved, removed MNEMONIC.n.SAMPLE-RATE. In conveying this to the EGS Team, including MAV (NASA) and Ryan Conrad (MITRE) there was concern that we were losing fidelity with the data by only using PUBLISH-RATE to create messages but not having multiple samples at a rate of SAMPLE-RATE.

    When we were considering this one, we approached it from the perspective that SAMPLE-RATE and PUBLISH-RATE created a dual-mechanism for when to send the MVAL message. While this is still and issue, there may be a way to allow both desired results in a combined way.

    One concern of both the C2MS Team and the EGS Team is in getting too many messages published. This is a clear concern with the SAMPLE-RATE, because of the CRITERIA's indication of "when data should be provided for the mnemonic", including on "Change". In fact, it's likely that CRITERIA is the suspect field basically determining how often to "provide" the data rather than SAMPLE-RATE.

    Perhaps we could do the following:

    • state in C2MS that the messages will only be produced at the PUBLISH-RATE, but that if SAMPLE-RATE is tighter, then there will be multiple samples in the message.
    • Instead of removing SAMPLE-RATE, we remove CRITERIA, so that the SAMPLE rate simply determines how often to sample

    Whatever we do, we need to revisit SAMPLE-RATE before finalizing 1.1.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 17:39 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT

Replace Unsolicited Echo with a Separate Message

  • Key: C2MS11-140
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    According to the Command Echo Request:

    “This message is nominally sent after a Command Request is processed by the final destination (e.g., antenna or spacecraft). The Command Echo Message can also be generated without a prior Command Request Message being sent; this is known as an 'unsolicited echo' and can be generated by ground station equipment as a result of the antenna receiving noise or interference.”

    The concept of an unsolicited echo seems very strange, because it raises the question of what is being echoed, if it is not the command.

    The Command Echo Message Additional Information table has a CMD-ECHO-RESULT value of UNEX "Unexpected echo received" which I suspect is tied to the "unsolicited echo".

    If an unsolicited echo is meant to convey that the ground equipment is receiving noise or interference from the antenna, I believe a better approach would be to define a message to capture the noise or interference as an occurrence in the ground string and to send that, rather than to overload the Command Echo Message.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 20:20 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT

Command Echo Not Provided Message

  • Key: C2MS11-138
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    We have already added a CMD-ECHO boolean to the Command Request Message in C2MS11-87. However, there is a possible scenario where just because we asked for one, there is no way for one to be delivered.

    According to C2MS11-87, the field is an attempt to "Indicate if an ECHO should be sent at any configured point(s) along the ground chain as the command is transmitted."

    The question of this issue is around what to do if the back-end system is not capable of or is not configured to send an Echo. In that case, there would quietly be no echo at all in spite of setting that flag to true. Gerry has brought up that perhaps we need a message type that is "unable to echo" or use the CMD ECHO message with a value of "here's your echo, but we aren't able to collect any information".
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 19:46 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT

Improve text related to ONESHOT in Mval Request Message

  • Key: C2MS11-141
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Mnemonic Value Request Message and its corresponding Mnemonic Value Response Message utilize a concept called "ONESHOT" or "Oneshot". These are the only messages in C2MS that have this construct.

    This is described in Mnemonic Value Request Message as:
    “The Mnemonic Value Request Message is used to request one or more mnemonics either as a single sample ('Oneshot') or as a request to Start publishing the mnemonics continuously.”

    and

    Mnemonic Value Response Message:
    "For a 'Oneshot' Mnemonic Value Request Message, the Mnemonic Value Response Message contains the values of the requested mnemonics and no further Mnemonic Value Data messages will be published."

    However, in a significant way, these statements conflict with the next line:
    "For a 'Start' Mnemonic Value Request Message, the Mnemonic Value Response Message contains the initial values of the requested mnemonics and subsequent occurrences of the mnemonics will be published via the Mnemonic Value Data Message."

    In other words, the Response Message will contain the initial set of data (current point values) in response to EITHER 'Start' or 'Oneshot'. The description says "either or" ("either as a single sample ('Oneshot') or as a request to Start publishing"), but the logical statement should be "yes and maybe" (Both Oneshot and Start will contain the initial set of data, but only Start will be followed with Mvals).

    As written, the text has to be read carefully to understand the "yes and maybe" logic. I suggest adding some supporting text to clarify this.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:16 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT

STREAM-MODE Issues with Replay Telemetry Message

  • Key: C2MS11-144
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    There is a STREAM-MODE in Replay Telemetry Message, but in this case, I believe what it is there for is to say what types of telemetry messages to replay. It's not part of the Subject, the way STREAM-MODE is for other messages. I'm not sure it makes sense in this message type and should be re-evaluated. At a minimum, beefing up the description of it would be helpful.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Sun, 19 Mar 2023 21:16 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT

NUM-OF-[ITEMS] Should be Required

  • Key: C2MS11-135
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    As part of C2MS11-14, which was already approved, there was a subtle inconsistency through its text and image changes. This issue is to capture the change for final submission of the documentation for C2MS 1.1.

    In that issue, in the Configuration Status Message there is a field, NUM-OF-ASSOCS. It is marked optional in the diagram, but required in the text table.

    In the Heartbeat Message, NUM-OF-SUBSCRIPTIONS is shown as optional, both in the diagram and in the text table.

    In the Mnemonic Value Request Message, NUM-OF-MNEMONICS is shown as required, both in the diagram and in the text table.

    In all cases throughout C2MS where there is a NUM-OF-[ITEMS] field, it should be required in the corresponding diagram and text table.

    This is to align it with the obvious. The NUM-OF field indicates how many items are present in a set, such as MNEMONICS. If there are none, this field should simply be set to 0. However, if it were optional, that would mean that the field would either be present or set to 0. The former is preferred for clarity.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 12:05 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT
  • Attachments:

Split ME1 in Simple Service Req/Resp

  • Key: C2MS11-131
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Simple Service Request uses ME1 to indicate the target of the request, but this can have one of two mutually-exclusive forms:

    • Service Provider Name (a named instance of a component, such as FDServiceApp1)
    • A Service Name not related to a specific component (such as Flight Dynamics)

    Meanwhile, the Simple Service Response also uses ME1 in a similar, but slightly different way. In the RESP, ME1 represents one of two mutually exclusive forms:

    • A Requestor Name (a named instance of a components that requested a service, or will receive data from the Service Provider, such as C2App7)
    • A Service Name not specific to a component (such as Flight Dynamics)

    Note that when using ME1 to designate a component, it is always the target recipient of the request/response, but when specifying a Service Name, it is always the name of the Service Provided, which is more related to the responder than the requestor. In this way, the Request Message uses that form of ME1 to designate the recipient, but the Response Message in that form designates to the provider.

    This dual-hatting of ME1 is pretty confusing. One major user of C2MS has modified these messages to separate out the two uses of ME1 into ME1 and ME2, shifting ME2 and ME3 to the right.

    This issue reqeusts to do that same thing, matching the modification made by that major user.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:53 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT

Clarify Correlation PUBLISH-RATE and SAMPLE-RATE on Mnemonic Value Request Message

  • Key: C2MS11-56
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    In Mnemonic Value Request Message, there is a PUBLISH-RATE and there is a SAMPLE-RATE that can be specified for each MVAL. The correlation between these is somewhat open to interpretation. For example, the text of the SAMPLE-CRITERIA, associated with SAMPLE-RATE, says it drives "when data should be provided" which overlaps with the PUBLISH-RATE. If taking SAMPLE-RATE to be independent of PUBLISH-RATE, it means something else entirely.

    The supporting text of the Mnemonic Value Request Message needs to make clear how these interact.

    Note that we previously determined to remove SAMPLE-RATE due to perceived overlap, but have since decided to leave it in place and make clear its usage.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2022 00:40 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT
  • Attachments:

MNEMONIC CRITERIA Needs alignment with C2MS11-56

  • Key: C2MS11-136
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    There is an already-accepted issue, C2MS11-56, that removed MNEMONIC.n.SAMPLE-RATE, but that issue did not address the related field, MNEMONIC.n.CRITERIA.

    In that other issue, the MNEMONIC.n.SAMPLE-RATE was removed because it overlapped with the PUBLISH-RATE of the base message.

    Since SAMPLE-RATE has been removed, one of the following additional steps needs to be taken:

    Option A - remove the value "3 = Sample Rate" from MNEMONIC.n.CRITERIA

    Option B - Remove MNEMONIC.n.CRITERIA completely for the same reasons SAMPLE-RATE was removed

    Option B - Move MNEMONIC.n.CRITERIA to a field in the base message now to be called "PUBLISH-CRITEREA" with the following possible values:
    1 = Change (value, flags, status) [publish when any MVAL experiences a change]
    2 = Every Sample [publish when any new sample arrives for any MVAL]
    3 = Publish Rate [publish at the rate specified in PUBLISH-RATE, already in the base message]

    The bottom line is that just as in C2MS11-56, it doesn't make sense to have different publish/sample rates for the main message and each MVAL, so any of the above options are preferred over what it is in 1.0. (Mike: Personally, I like Option C).
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0 — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:21 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34 GMT

Real-world STREAM-MODE Issues

  • Key: C2MS11-90
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Mike Anderson)
  • Summary:

    A number of C2MS Messages include the concept of marking the mode of the data as “real-time (RT), replay (RPY), simulation (SIM), or test (TEST)” through a required field, STREAM-MODE.

    The specific messages are:

    • Telemetry CCSDS Packet Message
    • Telemetry CCSDS Frame Message
    • Telemetry TDM Frame Message
    • Telemetry Processed Frame Message
    • Replay Telemetry Data Request Message
    • Attitude Parameter Message
    • Attitude Ephemeris Message
    • Orbit Parameter Message
    • Orbit Mean-Elements Message
    • Orbit Ephemeris Message
    • Tracking Data Message

    Where used, STREAM-MODE is a required field. A typical explanation in the C2MS Spec is that, “The STREAM-MODE field is used to classify the kind or source of the” message.
    Although this may be useful in a closed experimental/engineering system, the concepts are not appropriate for an operational SATOPS system, where replay, test, sim data should never be mixed with real-world operational data. In a system with many components, the use of the STREAM-MODE field assumes that every component will properly handle the distinction for every message. As an example, a FireThrusters CMD message is received and the component fails to note that this particular message is a RPY STREAM-MODE and thinks to itself… ‘huh, I thought we fired thrusters, yesterday… but, OK, here it goes…”. In another example, a SelfDestruct CMD message is received and the component fails to note that the message is marked as TEST or SIM…

    Instead of marking messages themselves, this type of distinction should be performed environmentally; one system is the operational system, other, separate systems are for simulation or test, another separate system performs forensics (replay). Keeping these purposed environments isolated from each other ensures that data never intermixes where not appropriate.
    The resolution to this concern could be any of the following:

    1. Remove the STREAM-MODE field — breaks backward compatibility, and affects any system already using this field. However, it represents a clean break from a field that should never be used in practice, anyway.
    2. Make the STREAM-MODE field optional with default value assumed to be RT (real-time) and mark the field as deprecated (deprecated = should no longer be used and will be removed in a future major release) — maintains backward compatibility, but signals to users to cease using the field.
    3. Make the STREAM-MODE field optional with default value assumed to be RT (real-time) and provide a best-practices statement; something to the effect of, “Although maintained for backward compatibility, the use of this field is strongly discouraged for operational systems, where test, sim, or replay data should never mix with real-world operational data” — this weakest approach leaves the use of the field in the hands of the user, but would be a bit embarrassing from the standpoint of a specification to preserve a capability that is strongly discouraged.

    See attachment for non-exhaustive use in C2MS Spec.