DDS Interoperability Wire Protocol Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

DDS Interoperability Wire Protocol — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: DDSI-RTPS
  • Issues Count: 63
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
DDSIRTP23-78 PID_DIRECTED_WRITE and PID_ORIGINAL_WRITER_INFO need further description DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-6 Message Size should be included as part of DDSI/RTPS Messages DDSI-RTPS 2.1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Deferred closed
DDSIRTP23-42 Update section 10 (Data Encapsulation) DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-119 Make sure all references to the RTPS version are updated to 2.4 DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-118 DomainId should propagated in the ParticipantBuiltinTopicData DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-76 Unused ParameterIds in Table 9.12 DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-115 Reference the PIDs that are reserved by the XTypes Spec in RTPS DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-113 Describe how to create a WITH_KEY or NO_KEY RTPS Endpoint from DDS DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-110 Data/Frag submessage flag for security DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-108 Update state machine to allow retrieving inline qos from a CacheChange DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-104 Figure 8.29 duplicates 8.28 DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
DDSIRTP23-103 Inconsistent definitions of ParticipantMessageData DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
DDSIRTP23-101 Typo in 8.4.13 DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-96 Update UML figures in the specification DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-40 Builtin Interparticipant Channel should have DataReader reliability kind BEST_EFFORTS DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-3 Clarify start of alignment for SerializedPayload DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-23 Editing issues DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-29 How should interoperable implementations deal with Group Coherent updates DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-26 How should interoperable implementations deal with Transient / Persistent data? DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Deferred closed
DDSIRTP23-30 RTF needs to agree any change of name and/or URL for specification DDSI-RTPS 2.1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Deferred closed
DDSIRTP23-31 GAP lack information on related (instance/key) needed for correct DDS behavior DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-90 Reorganizing section 9.3.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-77 Table 9.13 "reserved for future use" rows DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-75 Remove/deprecate Property_t, EntityName_t, PID_PROPERTY_LIST DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
DDSIRTP23-74 PIM-PSM inconsistent BuiltInEndpoints DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-73 resendDataPeriod in StatelessWriter DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-72 Deprecate PID_PARTICIPANT_BUILTIN_ENDPOINTS DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
DDSIRTP23-71 Include the padded bits into the Encapsulation options DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
DDSIRTP23-70 InfoTimestamp dates past 2038 DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-69 Normative references for IDL and CDR DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-100 BestEffort StatefulReader behavior does not handle GAP DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-97 Figure 8.1 has extra classes. Figures 8.2 and 8.5 are missing attributes DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-39 RTPS Minor version should take into consideration DDS-Security DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-38 Reference reserved ParameterIDs for DDS-Security and dependencies DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
DDSIRTP23-36 Semantics of AckNack's Final Flag DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-37 Incorrect definition of SequenceNumberSet DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-20 Section 8.4.9.1.4: Best-Effort Stateful Writer GAP semantics DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-22 Section 8.4.7.3, Table 8.52: Describe ReaderLocator operations' semantics DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-25 Use the term "Encapsulation" consistently and precisely DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-27 Remove the concept of Topic Kinds (With Key vs. No Key) DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-24 Key attributes and Regular attributes of a topic should be individually de-serializable DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
DDSIRTP23-28 DDSI/RTPS Key MD5 Hash DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
DDSIRTP23-32 Incorrect/misleading description of KeyHash computation DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-66 Sending a HeartBeat message when there is no data is unspecified DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-41 Link to RTPS VendorId web page is broken DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-2 Locator_t kind needs a reserved range and a range for vendor extensions DDSI-RTPS 2.2 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-4 Some constants specified in PSM table 9.4 conflict with the ones used in wireshark DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-5 Referencing current version of DDS spec (was: Clarification of link comment) DDSI-RTPS 2.1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-7 The Writer Liveliness Protocol should be removed DDSI-RTPS 2.1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
DDSIRTP23-8 Section: 9.6.2.2.2, Table 9.13: Missing ParameterId mappings for RTPS fields DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-9 Section: 9.6.2.2.2, Table 9.13: Missing ParameterId mappings for DDS fields DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
DDSIRTP23-10 Section: 9.6.2.2.2, Table 9.12: Duration_t not defined by PSM DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-11 Section 9.6.2.2.2, Table 9.12: Specify IPv4Address_t and Port_t DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-15 Section 9.6.2.2: What is the "key" parameter? DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-12 Section 9.6.2.2: Describe key-only encoding of built-in data types DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-14 Section 9.6.2.2: Duration_t used in IDL, not defined DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
DDSIRTP23-16 Section 8.7.6: RTPS support for semantics not present in DDS DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-13 Section 8.5.3.2, Table 8.73: Make defaultUnicastLocatorList optional DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
DDSIRTP23-17 Section: 8.5.3.2, Figure 8.27 and Table 8.73 DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
DDSIRTP23-18 Section 8.4.15.7: Scope of the count fields of Heartbeat and AckNack/NackFrag DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-19 Section 8.4.14.1.1, Bullet 3: Put precise bounds on the fragment size DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Resolved closed
DDSIRTP23-21 Section 8.4.8.1.4: When does Best-Effort Stateless Writer send a GAP DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
DDSIRTP23-1 Rename BuiltinEndpointKind and add description DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 DDSI-RTPS 2.3 Closed; No Change closed

Issues Descriptions

PID_DIRECTED_WRITE and PID_ORIGINAL_WRITER_INFO need further description

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Table 9.14 introduces PID_DIRECTED_WRITE and PID_ORIGINAL_WRITER_INFO but they are not described in the subsequent sections.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:51 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add description for PID_ORIGINAL_WRITER_INFO and deprecate PID_DIRECTED_WRITE

    A missing description for PID_ORIGINAL_WRITER_INFO has been added and PID_DIRECTED_WRITE type has been updated to match common practice with note to ignore when the format is not known.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Message Size should be included as part of DDSI/RTPS Messages

  • Legacy Issue Number: 17286
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Angelo Corsaro)
  • Summary:

    Original Description

    The DDSI/RTPS wire protocol currently expects the transport to provide the size for the message – said in other terms, the current version of the protocol can only work with message oriented transports, such as UDP/IP.

    This assumptions should be dropped in order to enable the use of DDSI/RTPS over stream oriented transports such as TCP/IP.

    One possible approach to overcome this limitation w/o breaking backward compatibility with other implementation is to add a new sub-message element, say MESSAGE_LEN structured as follows:

    +--------+--------+--------+--------+
    |   ID   | Flags  | octect2NextSME  |
    +--------+--------+--------+--------+
    |          Message Length           |
    +-----------------------------------+
    

    In addition, for efficient parsing, if the sub-message above, when used, should be always placed right after the RTPS header.

    RTF 2.3 Discussion


    The RTF is recommending this issue is deferred until the transports PSMs that need it (e.g. the RTPS TCP PSM) define the requirements in a more complete way. The point is that these PSMs will need more than just the message length and RTPS should include a mechanism that is sufficiently generic to accommodate it. We are not ready yet to define it.

    The latest proposal we had developed is below. It is left here so future revisions of the specification can leverage these ideas.

    Overall Approach
    -----------------------
    Introduce a new RTPS submessage "RTPSHeaderExtension" with the following elements:

    • rtpsMsgLength

    The rtpsMsgLength indicates the length of the RTPS message

    The RTPSHeaderExtension submessage, if present, shall follow immediately after the RTPS Header

    The DDS Security specification will leave this RTPSHeaderExtension following the RTPS Header and before the SecureRTPSPrefixSubMsg. The length will be updated to the new length after processing by the security plugins.

    Another option would be that the RTPSHeaderExtension (therefore not a header extension) would go after the SecureRTPSPrefixSubMsg, but it would be useless there because it can't be used before applying security. The length is no longer serving its purpose, so this is therefore not an option.

    RTF 2.3 Latest Proposed Revised Text

    In section 7.6 'The RTPS Transport Model', update the following bullet point as shown:

    • The transport provides a means to deduce the size of the received message.

    Update Figure 8.8 'Structure of RTPS Messages' to include RTPSHeaderExtension as one if the Submessages.


    In Section 8.3.2 (Type Definitions), Table 8.13 'Types used to define RTPS messages', update the 'Purpose' column for Type SubmessageKind to add RTPS_HE to the list of reserved kinds:
    Enumeration used to identify the kind of Submessage.
    The following values are reserved by this version of the protocol:
    RTPS_HE, DATA, GAP, HEARTBEAT, ACKNACK, PAD, INFO_TS, INFO_REPLY, INFO_DST, INFO_SRC, DATA_FRAG, NACK_FRAG, HEARTBEAT_FRAG


    In section 8.3.2 'Type Definitions' in Table 8.13 add the following row after the row for 'Count_t'

    Checksum_t Type used to hold a checksum. Used to detect message corruption.

    In section 8.3.3 'The Overall Structure of an RTPS Message' update the final paragraph as follows:
    Each message sent by the RTPS protocol has a finite length. This length is not sent explicitly by the RTPS protocol but is part of the underlying transport with which RTPS messages are sent. This length is optionally sent in the RTPS HeaderExtension Submessage.

    The length may also be sent by the underlying transport that carries the RTPS message and, in these cases, may be omitted from the HeaderExtension. In For example, in the case of a packet-oriented transport (like UDP/IP), the length of the message is already provided by the transport encapsulation.

    A In contrast, a stream-oriented transport (like TCP) would need to insert the length ahead of the message include the length in the RTPS HeaderExtension in order to identify the boundary of the RTPS message.


    Add the following subsection following subsection 8.3.5.10 (Count):
    8.3.7.1.2 Checksum
    Checksum is used in the HeaderExtension Submessage and enables the receiver to detect messages corrupted by the transport.

    Table 29 – Structure of the Checksum SubmessageElement

    field type meaning
    value Checksum_t Checksum computed over a set of bytes.

    Add the following subsection as the first subsection in section 8.3.7 'RTPS Submessages':
    8.3.7.1 HeaderExtension
    8.3.7.1.1 Purpose
    The HeaderExtension Submessage is used to convey optional information about the RTPS Message. This submessage, if present, shall appear directly after the RTPS Header.

    8.3.7.1.2 Content
    The elements that form the structure of the HeaderExtension message are described in the table below.
    Table 8.XX - Structure of the HeaderExtension Submessage

    element type meaning
    EndiannessFlag SubmessageFlag Appears in the Submessage header flags. Indicates endianness.
    LenghtFlag SubmessageFlag Appears in the Submessage header flags. Indicates the the rtpsMessageLength field is present.
    ChecksumFlag SubmessageFlag Appears in the Submessage header flags. Indicates the the rtpsMessageChecksum field is present.
    PortFlag SubmessageFlag Appears in the Submessage header flags. Indicates the the destinationPort field is present.
    rtpsMessageLength ulong If present, contains the length of the RTPS Message starting from the beginning of the RTPS Header.
    rtpsMessageChecksum Checksum If present, contains a checksum computed over the content of the RTPS Message, which includes the HeaderExtension submessage. For the purposes of computing the checksum the rtpsMessageChecksum is set to zero.
    destinationPort ulong If present, contains the transport port where the RTPS Message is sent.

    8.3.7.1.3 Validity
    This Submessage is invalid when any of the following is true:

    • submessageLength in the Submessage header is too small to fit the fields that are present as indicated by the submessage flags.
    • rtpsMessageLength is too small.

    8.3.7.1.4 Change in state of Receiver
    None.

    8.3.7.1.5 Logical Interpretation
    The RTPSHeaderExtension may be sent to communicate the length of the RTPS Message. This information may be useful to for managing memory while receiving incoming RTPS Messages.

    The rtpsMsgLength contains the entire length of the RTPS Message starting from the beginning of the RTPS Header.


    In section 9.4.5.1.1 'SubmessageId', add RTPS_HE to the enum SubmessageKind and update the definition to use new IDL syntax:

    enum SubmessageKind {
        @value(0x00)
        RTPS_HE,    /* RTPSHeaderExtension */
        @value(0x01)
        PAD, /* Pad */            
        @value(0x06)
        ACKNACK, /* AckNack */        
        @value(0x07)
        HEARTBEAT, /* Heartbeat */      
        @value(0x08)
        GAP, /* Gap */            
        @value(0x09)
        INFO_TS, /* InfoTimestamp */  
        @value(0x0c)
        INFO_SRC, /* InfoSource */     
        @value(0x0d)
        INFO_REPLY_IP4, /* InfoReplyIp4 */   
        @value(0x0e)
        INFO_DST, /* InfoDestination */
        @value(0x0f)
        INFO_REPLY, /* InfoReply */      
        @value(0x12)
        NACK_FRAG, /* NackFrag */       
        @value(0x13)
        HEARTBEAT_FRAG, /* HeartbeatFrag */  
        @value(0x15)
        DATA, /* Data */           
        @value(0x16)
        DATA_FRAG /* DataFrag */
    };
    

    Add the following subsection as the subsection directly following 9.4.5.1 'Submessage Header' in section 9.4.5 'Mapping of the RTPS Submessages':
    9.4.5.2 RTPSHeaderExtension Submessage
    Sub clause 8.3.7.1 in the PIM defines the logical contents of the RTPSHeaderExtension Submessage. The PSM maps the RTPSHeaderExtension Submessage into the following wire representation:

    0...2...........8...............16..............24..............32
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    RTPS_HE    |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|E|       octetsToNextHeader      |
    +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    |                          ulong rtpsMsgLength                  |
    +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    
    

    In section 9.3.2, add the following IDL following the IDL for:
    typedef long Count_t;

    typedef unsigned long Checksum_t;
    
  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.1 — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer until we have a specification for the RTPS-TCP PSM

    This requirement is mostly driven from the needs of additional transport PSMs (such as the RTPS-TCP) that are currently under development.

    It is unclear whether these PSMs will just need this or also other information beyond the port number which can be addressed at the same time as suggested by some of the discussions and proposed resolutions.

    Therefore the opinion of the RTF is to defer this issue until an additional RTPS Transport PSM is approved to better understand the requirements.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Update section 10 (Data Encapsulation)

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Section 10 was written before there was a good reference for the data representation used by DDS. Now that we have the DDS-XTYPES specification the section should updated to indicate the minimal requirements to comply with RTPS and reference XTYPES for full DDS type interoperability.

    Note that we should not make RTPS depend on XTYPES. The intent is just to clarify where different things are, not to change the things required for compliance.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update Section 10 (Data Encapsulation)

    Replace Section 10 to more precisely define the Encapsulation Identifiers and and reference the Data Representation formats in DDS-XTYPES section 7.4.

    Include an example for builtin Topic and one for an application-defined Topic.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

Make sure all references to the RTPS version are updated to 2.4

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    DDS Security updated the RTPS version to 2.3. Consequently this revision should update it to 2.4. See also DDSIRTP23-56

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:56 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update protocol version from 2.2 to 2.4

    Replace all the version 2.2 with 2.4 in all places except Section 9.3.1.4 '9.3.1.4 Deprecated EntityIds in version 2.2 of the Protocol' and Section 9.6.4 'ParameterIds Deprecated by the Protocol'

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

DomainId should propagated in the ParticipantBuiltinTopicData

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Currently the domainId is not propagated with the ParticipantBuiltinTopicData as a result there could be situations where Participant accidentally discovers another one on a different DomainId as a result of port overlaps.

    This issue requests the domainId to be propagated in the ParticipantBuiltinTopicData so it can be checked independently of port numbers.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Tue, 15 May 2018 16:09 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Propagate DomainId as part of Participant Discovery

    Add domainId as an additional field in ParticipantProxy
    Add PID_DOMAIN_ID with value 0x000f containing a domainId
    Add PID_DOMAIN_TAG with value 0x4014 containing a domainTag

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

Unused ParameterIds in Table 9.12

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    The role of Table 9.12 is "...the list of ParameterIds used to encapsulate the data for the built-in Entities" (9.6.2.2.2).

    The following ParameterIds are not used for built-in entities and therefore do not belong in this table: PID_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_SET, PID_PROPERTY_LIST, PID_TYPE_MAX_SIZE_SERIALIZED, PID_ENTITY_NAME, PID_KEY_HASH, PID_STATUS_INFO (the last six rows). Some of them are already in Table 9.14.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:46 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove ParameterIds incorrectly listed Table 9.12 and Add Missing Usage for PID_TYPE_MAX_SIZE_SERIALIZED

    PID_KEY_HASH and PID_STATUS_INFO are incorrectly listed in Table 9.12 which lists the data for the builtin entities. They are already listed in Table 9.14 'Inline QoS parameters' so they have been removed from Table 9.12. A new optional attribute has been added to WriterProxy for PID_TYPE_MAX_SIZE_SERIALIZED.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

Reference the PIDs that are reserved by the XTypes Spec in RTPS

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    The Xtypes Specification uses some of the protocol-specific PIDs, we should note that these PIDs are reserved in the RTPS spec.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 01:15 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reference the PIDs that are reserved by the XTypes Spec in RTPS

    The Xtypes Spec uses PIDs 0x0072, 0x0073, 0x0074, and 0x0075, we have noted in RTPS that these PIDs are reserved.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Describe how to create a WITH_KEY or NO_KEY RTPS Endpoint from DDS

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Describe how to create a WITH_KEY or NO_KEY RTPS Endpoint from DDS. The RTPS endpoints have a with_key attribute, but it is not clear how this attribute can be set

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 02:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Describe how to create a WITH_KEY or NO_KEY RTPS Endpoint from DDS

    The text has been clarified to describe how an RTPS Writer and RTPS Reader can be defined as either WITH_KEY or NO_KEY from DDS.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Data/Frag submessage flag for security

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    See https://issues.omg.org/browse/DDSSEC12-33 for background.
    Since this revision of RTPS will take into account the extensions for DDS-Security, define a flag in Data/Frag submessages to indicate that the SerializedPayload submessage element was modified for security.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:42 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reserve a flag in DATA and DATA_FRAG Submessages to indicate the SerializedPayload has been transformed

    A flag in DATA and DATA_FRAG Submessages was reserved to indicate that the SerializedPayload has been transformed.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Update state machine to allow retrieving inline qos from a CacheChange

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    There are protocol messages that have sample-specific inlineQoS that comes from the higher layers (for example the original writer info) we need to add this to the CacheChange.inlineQos and the virtual machine should be updated that in addition to getting inlineqos from the writer, it should also get it form the cache change itself

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:58 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Retrieve inlineQoS from CacheChange

    InlineQos can come from a CacheChange as well as from the writer. CacheChange has been updated to include inlineQos and the virtual machine has been updated to retrieve this inlineQoS as well.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 8.29 duplicates 8.28


Inconsistent definitions of ParticipantMessageData

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    The ParticipantMessageData appears defined in 3 places:

    Figure 8.26 - ParticipantMessageData

    Section 9.6.2.1 (Data Representation for the ParticipantMessageData Built-in Endpoints) in the IDL

    Section 9.6.2.1 In the CDR encoded representation.

    These definitions are not consistent. The IDL definition appears to be the correct one. This should be verified and the others should be adjusted to match it.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Wed, 7 Feb 2018 21:24 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Already covered by DDSIRTP23-23

    Close as duplicate as it is already covered by DDSIRTPS23-23

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Typo in 8.4.13

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    "All implementations must support the Wirter Liveliness Protocol", Wirter should be Writer

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:55 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix typo

    Replace "Wirter" with "Writer"

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Update UML figures in the specification


Builtin Interparticipant Channel should have DataReader reliability kind BEST_EFFORTS

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Currently it is RELIABLE. The problem is that this channel is used to send the Liveliness assertions. Being reliable if one is lost, future assertions cannot make it through even if they are written by the DataWriter. Rather it has to wait for the repair packet which depends on timing for HeartBeat and repair which may be longer than the assertion period.

    Since the assertion message is small, it is more efficient to send it faster than rely on faster heartbeats and ACKNACKs.

    This change would be backwards compatible since the DataWriter would still have reliability kind RELIABLE.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 22:09 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Add Flags to the BuiltinEndpointSet to Facilitate Communication of Configuration Options *

    It is useful to be able to configure the builtin endpoints and then communicate the configurations. A new PID has been defined that will allow communication of these specific configurations. One of the new flags will be used to communicate the Reliability kind of the inter-participant DataReader.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

Clarify start of alignment for SerializedPayload

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19660
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.4.2.12 should clearly state where the alignment begins. Is it before the encapsulation header or after the encapsulation header?

    Note that 9.4.2.11 already talks about it for the ParameterList encapsulation so 9.4.2.12 should use the same approach.

    The language in 9.4.2.11 should also be improved to make it less ambiguous, specifically stating that the reset of the alignment occurs after the parameterID before the parameter data is serialized.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the start alignment for the SerializedPayload SubmessageElement

    The SerializedPayload SubmessageElement has been updated to clearly state that the CDR stream is logically reset after the encapsulation header, similar to what is already described in section 9.4.2.11. Section 9.4.2.11 has also been improved for clarity, with no change to semantics.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Editing issues

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16957
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    1. Section: 8.3.6.3, Bullet 2 and Footnote 2
    Page: 43
    Change: PROTOCOL_RTPS is not defined by PSM

    2. Section: 8.3.7.3.2, Table 8.35
    Page: 50
    Change: KeyFlag is missing from the table

    3. Section: 8.3.7.3.2, Table 8.35
    Page: 51
    Change: Remove the line "Present only if DataFlag is set in the header", as DataFrag has no such flag. Remove the line "Present only if either the DataFlag or the KeyFlag are set in the header", as DataFrag has no DataFlag. In the first bullet point replace "If the DataFlag is set" with "If the KeyFlag is not set".

    4. Section: 8.4.1
    Page: 63
    Change: Section 8.4.13 (Writer Liveliness) is missing from this list.

    5. Section: 8.4.7.2
    Page: 75
    Change: The paragraph above the table should be changed from using Locator_t to ReaderLocator (the table was changed in a previous revision).

    6. Section: 8.4.7.2.2, 8.4.7.2.3
    Page: 76
    Change: Locator_t in these sections should be ReaderLocator

    7. Section: 8.4.7.3, Table 8.51
    Page: 77
    Change: In figure 8.15, type of locator is Locator_t[*] but the [*] is missing from this table (8.51) and the text should reflect the actual cardinality

    8. Section: 8.4.9.2
    Page: 93
    Change: The sentence fragment "Submessages are used..." is nonsensical, it should be removed.

    9. Section: 8.5.3.3, Figure 8.29
    Page: 129
    Change: Remove figure 8.29, it is a duplicate of figure 8.28

    10. Section: 9.4.5.3, block diagram
    Page: 170
    Change: Flag "K" is missing from the flags byte

    11. Section: 9.6.2.1
    Page: 180
    Change: The wire-representation diagram is missing the participantGuidPrefix and kind fields (also see OMG Issue 12501)

    12. Section: 9.6.2.2, Table 9.10
    Page: 182
    Change: remoteWriterGuid belongs to WriterProxy, not ReaderProxy

    13. Section: 9.6.2.2, Table 9.10
    Page: 182
    Change: Table 9.10 caption is incorrect, looks like it was copied from 9.11

    14. Section: 9.6.3.2, Table 9.16
    Page: 190
    Change: KeyHashSuffix does not exist; remove this row from the table. The row for SerializedData should be sufficient to describe the use of PID_COHERENT_SET.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix Editorial Issues

    There are a number of minor editorial issues that need to fixed. This issue was created to resolve them.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

How should interoperable implementations deal with Group Coherent updates

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16100
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Angelo Corsaro)
  • Summary:

    The DDSI-RTPS Specification v2.1 does not currently specify how interoperable implementations should deal with Group Coherent updates

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Define RTPS Mechanisms for Group Ordered Access and Group Coherent Sets

    In order to support GROUP access scope as defined by the DDS specification, the RTPS spec has added the following elements:

    • New in-line QoS
      • PID_GROUP_SEQ_NUM sent with DATA and (first) DATA_FRAG submessages
      • PID_GROUP_COHERENT_SET in-line QoS sent with DATA and (first) DATA_FRAG submessages
      • PID_WRITER_GROUP_INFO in-line QoS sent with DATA and (first) DATA_FRAG submessages
      • PID_SECURE_WRITER_GROUP_INFO in-line QoS sent with DATA and (first) DATA_FRAG submessages
    • New SubmessageElement: GroupDigest
    • Extended HB message
      • New G flag (group info)
      • New fields when G flag is set:
        • currentGSN : SequenceNumber
        • firstGSN : SequenceNumber
        • lastGSN : SequenceNumber
        • writerSet : GroupDigest
        • secureWriterSet : GroupDigest
    • Extended GAP message
      • New G flag (group info)
      • New fields when G flag is set:
        • gapStartGSN : SequenceNumber
        • gapEndGSN : SequenceNumber
    • New fields WriterProxy::remoteGroupEntityId, ReaderProxy::remoteGroupEntityId
      • Uses previously deprecated PID_GROUP_ENTITYID
  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

How should interoperable implementations deal with Transient / Persistent data?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16099
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Angelo Corsaro)
  • Summary:

    The DDSI-RTPS Specification v2.1 does not currently specify how interoperable implementations should deal with Transient / Persistent data."

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer this issue until the next revision

    This issue requires additional time to be resolved. In order not to delay the adoption of the other important issues that are already resolved the RTF recommend it is deferred to the next RTF.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

RTF needs to agree any change of name and/or URL for specification

  • Legacy Issue Number: 15885
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    The DDS interoperability protocol is also referred to as RTPS. OMG staff have received conflicting suggestions for the short name of the protocol (RTPS vs. DDSI). This short name determines (amongst other things) the URL by which the mist recent version of the specification is always accessible.

    The RTF must decide what short name to use for this specification.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.1 — Thu, 9 Dec 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Yes/No vote to decide whether to keep DDSI-RTPS or change to DDS-RTPS

    If we do nothing the name will remain DDSI-RTPS.

    The proposed resolution to this issue is to change the acronym to DDS-RTPS. So if the issue is approved the acronym will change. If it is rejected it will stay the same.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

GAP lack information on related (instance/key) needed for correct DDS behavior

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11035
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Ken Brophy)
  • Summary:

    Title: Must send GAP when filtering on writer-side regardless of reliability QoS setting
    Source:
    Real-Time Innovations, Inc. (Ken Brophy, ken@rti.com)
    Summary:
    This issue is not currently in a state to be resolved. What follows are various thoughts on the issue and possible solutions to be discussed. This issue will not be resolved in time for the finalization task force and is included here to be documented for the revision task force.
    Discussion topic: what are DDS semantics for combining filtering with the deadline QoS?
    Should the deadline be triggered when all samples during the deadline period were filtered out?
    That is, does deadline require at least one sample to arrive every deadline period seconds that passed the filter?
    Or is the deadline satisfied when any sample arrives within the period, whether filtered out or not?

    If deadline only applies to samples that pass the filter, RTPS needs no changes, simply use the GAP subMessage to avoid incorrect onDataLost callbacks.
    If not, we run into a problem when using keyed DataWriters and finite deadlines. As the deadline applies on a per instance basis, the Reader expects at least one update for every instance, even when none of the updates for a particular instance pass the filter. A GAP message does not indicate for which instance an update was filtered out, so it cannot be used by the Reader to verify the deadline constraint. Instead, we should consider using an empty DATA message instead, possibly with a flag that states the update did not pass any filter. This would also be useful to add a new instance state NOT_ALIVE_FILTERED or so later on to the DDS spec.
    Another possibility would be to add a list of KeyHashes to the GAP message. SO that a GAP that is caused by a CFT actually encodes the instances that are being gapped. This would not cause incorrect firings of the DEADLINE and as a result would maintain ownership of instances even if they are filtered out…
    There are two ways to do this.
    Either we separate GAPs that correspond to filtered samples from those that correspond to irrelevant samples. So in effect we have two kinds of GAP messages
    Or we list explicitly the sequence number of each filtered message along with its KeyHash.
    Not clear what would be easier implementationwise. The samples that have been filtered are still on the writer so it appears that either implementation would work.
    Option (1) would save putting the sequence number with each KeyHash. This can be 4 or 8 bytes per instance, depending on whether we put the sequence number as is, or we encode it as an increment
    Option (2) would cause additional GAP submessages to be sent which is an overhead of 28 bytes. Not clear what is less costly…
    Also, if we use Option(1), then the messages that represent real GAPs can be sent via multicast; but this is only likely to occur when late joiners appear as normally there would be no "irrelevant" gaps if data is published immediately. Moreover we can in practice still do this and separate the GAP messages that represent real GAPs from the ones that don't. Option 1 does not force us to combine, just provides the means to do so…
    Option (2) has the problem that in certain edge cases the overhead is significant. For example if each we have a irrelevant-sample GAP followed by a filtered sample, followed by an irrelevant sample gap, etc. then we end up sending one GAP message per filtered sample with is 28 bytes of overhead per filtered sample versus a single GAP with 4 bytes of overhead per filtered sample. Also the processing is much more efficient as each GAP message is dispatched separately up the receiver's stack.
    For this reason it appears that Option 1 is more flexible, and the overhead is more stable. Opt
    Proposal(s):
    Always send GAPs for filtered-out messages (both in the BestEffort and in the RELIABLE) cases
    If the type is Keyed, then the GAP also includes at the end a sequence of :
    struct FilteredSampleDesc

    { long gapStartOffset; KeyHashPrefix keyHashPrefix; KeyHashSuffic keyHashSuffix; }

    ;
    The GAP message gets two additional flags:
    KeyHashFlag
    indicates the presence of the KeyHashPrefix
    FilteredSamplesFlag
    Indicates the presence of the sequence< FilteredSampleDesc>
    An issue needs to be filed against the DDS spec to clarify:
    (a) Whether the deadline as specified by a DataReader should apply to the samples that pass the DataReader filter or to the samples sent by any writer?
    (b) Whether a new instance_state ALIVE_FILTERED should be added such that the DataReader can determine that a sample was filtered and potentially take action on that.
    (c) Whether an API or a QoS should be added to the DataReader to allow the DataReader to remove the instance information for instances with state ALIVE_FILTERED after all samples are taken. This allows resources to be conserved in the case where once filtered we expect the instance to remain filtered and also allows a reader to be notified if the instance becomes unfiltered.
    (d) Weather to add a filtered_generation_count that the instance has becomed ALIVE after being in the ALIVE_FILTERED

    Resolution:
    T4 should include code and description that states that when the sample is not relevant, send a GAP…same for the stateful best effort writer.
    Revised Text:

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Wed, 23 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Introduce a mechanism to inform a Reader that an instance is filtered

    Extend the StatusInfo_t that is sent via inline Qos (PID_STATUS_INFO) such that it can be used to indicate that an instance has been filtered by a reader. This extends the current usage to send DISPOSE and UNREGISTER messages.

    Add an issue to the DDS RTF 1.5 to introduce the concept of ALIVE_FILTERED Instance state to complement the existing ones (ALIVE, NOT_ALIVE_DISPOSED, NOT_ALIVE_NO_WRITERS).

    Define more precisely when a writer that does writer-side content filter should send the DISPOSE, UNREGISTER, and FILTERED messages.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Reorganizing section 9.3.2

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.3.2 largely consists of a single 5-page table (Table 9.4). This creates a usability issue for the spec where important lists of constants (like the BuiltinEndpointSet_t values) need to be found within the huge table instead of directly being referred to by other parts of this spec or other specs (Security).

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:49 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Split Table 9.4

    When current rows of Table 9.4 contain their own tables of constants (beyond just trivial constants that we don't expect to change in future minor versions), make these constants their own tables.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Table 9.13 "reserved for future use" rows

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    The presence of the final three rows of the table with "Reserved for future use" is confusing, why is it in the specification if all (non-vendor-specific) PIDs are effectively reserved?

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:48 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove PID_GROUP_ENTITYID and PID_PARTICIPANT_ENTITYID

    PID_GROUP_ENTITYID and PID_PARTICIPANT_ENTITYID are not currently used for any purpose and are not being sent by any known implementors. They have therefore been removed from the specification.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Remove/deprecate Property_t, EntityName_t, PID_PROPERTY_LIST

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Table 9.4
    Property_t and EntityName_t are unused, so these can be removed without making any actual changes to the protocol

    Table 9.12
    PID_PROPERTY_LIST is unused, remove it from the table

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:41 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Do not remove Property_t and EntityName_t

    There are open issues to add EntityName_t and Property_t to the DDS specification and Property_t is already being used in the DDS-Security Spec. These two types and PIDs have therefore not been removed from RTPS as they will be used once they have been added to the DDS specification.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

PIM-PSM inconsistent BuiltInEndpoints

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Table 8.73 "availableBuiltinEndpoints" describes the PIM's datatype BuiltinEndpointSet_t using 6 constants (note: change text in this table to indicate that each constant denotes a potential member of the Set not the Set itself). The PIM also maps these constants to EntityId_t values in 8.5.4.2.

    The PSM fails to directly reference these constants for BuiltinEndpointSet_t in Table 9.4.

    PIM PSM notes
    none DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_ANNOUNCER needed?
    none DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_DETECTOR needed?
    PUBLICATIONS_WRITER DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PUBLICATION_ANNOUNCER clarify mapping
    PUBLICATIONS_READER DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PUBLICATION_DETECTOR clarify mapping
    SUBSCRIPTIONS_WRITER DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_SUBSCRIPTION_ANNOUNCER clarify mapping
    SUBSCRIPTIONS_READER DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_SUBSCRIPTION_DETECTOR clarify mapping
    TOPIC_WRITER missing add to PSM
    TOPIC_READER missing add to PSM
    none DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_PROXY_ANNOUNCER remove?
    none DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_PROXY_DETECTOR remove?
    none DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_STATE_ANNOUNCER remove?
    none DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_STATE_DETECTOR remove?
    PSM-only BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_MESSAGE_DATA_WRITER add to PIM?
    PSM-only BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_MESSAGE_DATA_READER add to PIM?

    To satisfy the PIM, the PSM must also describe how vendors add extensions to this list. Perhaps the best way to do that is to use a separate vendor-specific PID, but that should be described in the PSM to avoid vendors using reserved bits.

    It would be good if the spec was consistent about naming for the PSM constants. Some start with DISC_ while others don't. Some use the brand new terms "announcer" and "detector", others don't.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:34 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the PIM-PSM mapping for BuiltinEndpoints

    There are some inconsistencies between the PIM and PSM with regards to the builtin endpoints which have bits reserved in the availableBuiltinEndpoints. Some possible values are missing from the PIM that are referenced in the PSM and vice versa. Because the PIM and PSM use different names, the mapping between the constants that are defined in the PIM and their corresponding constants in the PSM has also been clarified.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

resendDataPeriod in StatelessWriter

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    resendDataPeriod is listed in Figure 8.15, Table 8.49, and pseudocode 8.4.7.2.1
    The issue is that nothing in the definition of StatelessWriter's behavior (8.4.8) describes how resendDataPeriod is used.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:08 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove resendDataPeriod from the StatelessWriter reference implemenation

    The member resendDataPeriod of the StatelessWriter is not referenced in the described StatelessWriter's behavior and seems unnecessary. It will therefore be removed.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

Deprecate PID_PARTICIPANT_BUILTIN_ENDPOINTS

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    It seems as though implementations are using PID_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_SET instead of PID_PARTICIPANT_BUILTIN_ENDPOINTS for the ParticipantProxy::availableBuiltinEndpoints.

    Some implementations accept both, but from the information we have so far, all implementations are sending PID_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_SET.

    We can add this PID to Table 9.17 as described in DDSIRTP23-48.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:09 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with resolution of DDSIRTP23-11

    The resolution of DDSIRTP23-11 was to deprecate a number of PIDs, the resolution of this issue was therefore added to that proposal by adding the deprecated PID_PARTICIPANT_BUILTIN_ENDPOINTS to the table described in DDSIRTP23-48.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Include the padded bits into the Encapsulation options

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Per the resolution of http://issues.omg.org/browse/DDSXTY12-10 the lower 2 bits of the encapsulation options shall be use to encode how many padding bits were added.

    This informations should be added to section 10.2.1.2 and an issue should be added to XTYPES 1.3 to remove it from there.

    Furthermore to avoid confusion/ambiguities we should be explicit about the endianess used to encode the "ushort options".

    Unless this would cause problems to existing implementations I would suggest we either state that the "ushort options" is always serialized using BigEndian or equivalently we change the type to octet[2] instead of "ushort".

    The reason is that the alternative interpretation, namely use the endianness implied by EncapsulationIdentifier is not well defined in all cases. Not all EncapsulationIdentifier kinds explicitly select an Endianness. The ones referenced in RTPS: CDR_BE, CDR_LE, PL_CDR_BE, and PL_CDR_LE that are defined in do. But others, including the "XML" defined in XTYPES do not. So RTPS could not make a general statement about the encoding of the "ushort options" unless the statement is to fix the endianess independent of the EncapsulationIdentifier.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:23 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with resolution of DDSIRTP23-42

    The resolution of this issue has been merged with the resolution of DDSIRTP23-42

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

InfoTimestamp dates past 2038

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    The seconds portion of the Time_t structure used for InfoTimestamp is limited to 32 bits, so it can't represent dates past 2038.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:22 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update Time_t to have an unsigned seconds field

    To support time stamps past the year 2038. the type of the seconds member in Time_t has been updated from a signed integer to unsigned. This will not rollover until the year 2106.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Normative references for IDL and CDR

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    The previous RTF (2.2) had an issue (#7) that cleaned up IDL syntax. A note in the resolution of that issue indicated that RTPS should have a normative for this. Back then, that reference was to formal/11-11-01, a chapter of CORBA. Today we can use IDL 4.1 formal/17-05-07.

    Similarly, the spec is not implementable without knowledge of the CDR encoding. This is defined in formal/12-11-14, chapter 9.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add missing normative references

    There are some missing normative references which should be added in section 3. They are:

    • IDL 4.1
    • CDR
    • IETF RFC 1305 (NTP Time)
    • IETF RFC 1321 (MD5)
  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

BestEffort StatefulReader behavior does not handle GAP

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    In section 8.4.12.1 Best-Effort StatefulReader Behavior the state machine does not handle the GAP message.

    Best-Effort readers also process GAP messages so this should be reflected in the state machine.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Wed, 7 Feb 2018 03:40 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add transition for when Best Effort Readers Receive GAP messages

    The Best-Effort Stateful Reader Behavior should include logic for when a GAP message is received, similar to the logic already present for its Reliable counterpart.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 8.1 has extra classes. Figures 8.2 and 8.5 are missing attributes

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Figure 8.1 shows a DataReader and DataWriter but these classes are not explained in Table 8.1 as all other are.

    These classes seem unnecessary to the explanations on section 8.2.1 so they should be removed from the figure. They are already explained in Figure 7.3.

    In addition the explanation of the attributes in Table 8.2 mentions GUID_t, GuidPrefix_t, EntityId_t, Locator_t, VendorId_t, and ProtocolVersion_t which are not shown in the figure.

    Figure 8.1 should be updated to show were those attributes are used.

    Figures 8.2 and 8.5 are missing the Participant attribute guidPrefix and the Endpoint attribute endpointId

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Sat, 27 Jan 2018 02:20 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update figure 8.1, 8.2, and 8.5

    Update figure 8.1. Remove DataWriter and DataReader and adding the missing attributes as described in the issue.
    Update figures 8.2 and 8.5 adding the missing attributes

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

RTPS Minor version should take into consideration DDS-Security

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    The DDS-Security 1.1 specification updated the RTPS minor version to 3. Consequently the result of the RTPS 2.3 RTF should be update the Minor version to 4 (not 3), assuming there are changes to the protocol.

    The section that states the RTPS minor revision should also reference DDS-Security so is clear that that specification may also update the minor versions and future revisions of RTPS take it into consideration.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Sat, 8 Jul 2017 00:15 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes made by the DDS-Security specification to RTPS into the RTPS spec

    The DDS-Security specification reserves new ParameterIds and submessageIds which need to be included as reserved in the RTPS spec. Also, due to these changes, the DDS-Security Spec updated the RTPS minor version to 3, therefore the newest version of the RTPS spec shall be 2.4.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Reference reserved ParameterIDs for DDS-Security and dependencies

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    The DDS-Security specification reserved a range of parameter IDs. Specifically section 7.4.1.3 (Reserved RTPS parameter IDs) of DDS-Security 1.1 states:

    This specification reserves the RTPS Simple Discovery Protocol ParameterIDs in the range: 0x1000 to 0x1FFF and 0x5000 to 0x5FFF.
    The second interval covers the same range of parametersID, except they have the must-understand bit set.
    This reserved range applies to RTPS version 2.3 (see 7.3.6.1) and higher minor revisions of RTPS. Future revisions of the DDS-RTPS specification shall take into consideration this fact.

    This reserved range should be included into the RTPS specification itself and a reference to DDS-Security so future revisions of RTPS can respect this reservation.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Sat, 8 Jul 2017 00:12 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicates DDSIRTP23-39

    The proposal for issue DDSIRTP23-39 covers all changes required by the next version of the RTPS specification as a result of the most recent DDS-Security spec.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Semantics of AckNack's Final Flag

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Users found that OpenDDS and CoreDX did not interoperate due to different interpretations of the Final Flag in AckNack.

    The use of FinalFlag in Heartbeat is pretty clear, but its extension to AckNack seems to be under-specified.

    This section tells us little:

    The FinalFlag indicates whether a response by the Writer is expected by the Reader or if the decision is left to the Writer. The use of this flag is described in 8.4.

    That last sentence is unhelpful as section 8.4 takes up about 60 pages. Searching through 8.4 results in very little about the AckNack's Final Flag.

    The key question is what is meant by "response by the Writer". Considering AckNacks that are both Final and have at least one "1" bit in the bitmap, is the Writer obligated to send the nacked DATA?

    a. One interpretation is that the Final Flag is a simple (constant-time) indication that the Writer need not resend DATA even with a "1" in the bitmap – in this scenario the Writer need not even read the bitmap. The AckNack is still useful because the bitmapBase can bump up the acknowledge sequence number.

    b. The other interpretation is that the presence of a "1" in the bitmap overrides the Final flag and the Writer must reply with DATA. In this interpretation the Final flag is used to indicate whether or not another HEARTBEAT is sent "soon" (instead of waiting for periodic heartbeat), but has no impact on sending DATA.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:06 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the meaning of the ACKNACK Final Flag

    The description of the ACKNACK final flag is not clear as to what is the expected behavior. The description needs to be updated to make clear that the absence of the Final Flag requires that the Writer send a HB and the presence of the flag leaves the decision up to the Writer.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Incorrect definition of SequenceNumberSet

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.4.2.6 (SequenceNumberSet)

    Specifies that

    A valid SequenceNumberSet must satisfy the following conditions:
    • bitmapBase >= 1
    • 0 < numBits <= 256
    • there are M=(numBits+31)/32 longs containing the pertinent bits

    This is seems like an error in how the spec is worded.
    What it was trying to say is that for the bitset to represent a set f bits then it must be that 0 < numBits <= 256

    However the case with numBits=0 is still valid. It represents an empty set, but the bitmapBase still carries information since. This is use by the ACKNAK sub-message to acknowledges al sequence numbers less or equal to bitmapBase without Nacking anything.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:21 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Update SequenceNumberSet definition to explicitly allow 0-bits *

    The current definition of the SequenceNumberSet requires at least 1 bit in the bitset but there are use cases where 0 bits are needed so the definition will be updated.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 8.4.9.1.4: Best-Effort Stateful Writer GAP semantics

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16965
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 92
    Change: Figure 8.18 notes that transition T4 can send a GAP, but this section doesn't describe when/how to send a GAP.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add descriptions of when Best Effort Writers Send GAP messages

    The Best-Effort Stateless and Stateful Writer Behaviors should include logic for when a GAP message is sent, similar to the logic already present for their Reliable counterparts.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 8.4.7.3, Table 8.52: Describe ReaderLocator operations' semantics

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16963
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 77
    Change: Unlike other tables of operations in this section, none of these operations are described in the text of the section

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add missing descriptions of the ReaderLocator operations in Table 8.52

    Add missing descriptions of the ReaderLocator operations in Table 8.52, in a similar manner to the other kinds of operations that are defined in this section.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Use the term "Encapsulation" consistently and precisely

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16955
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Encapsulation has a precise technical meaning from the CORBA spec (formal/11-11-02 section 9.3.3) and a similar meaning from chapter 10 of RTPS, neither of which matches most of the other uses of “encapsulation” throughout the RTPS spec. In general, encapsulation means adding specific prefix bytes to the on-the-wire representation of data. This prefix can be used by the receiver to understand the format of the following bytes. The majority of uses of “encapsulation” in the specification do not agree with this meaning. This issue seeks to fix that by using the simpler term of “encoding” in place of “encapsulation.”

    Encapsulate
    -----------------

    Section: 8.3.2, Table 8.13, Count_t row
    Page: 30
    Change: replace “'encapsulate'” with “'hold”'

    Section: 8.3.3.2, Table 8.15, flags row
    Page: 34
    Change: replace '“encapsulate”' with “'encode”' in two places

    Section: 8.3.5.1
    Page: 37
    Change: replace “'encapsulate'” with '“contain'”

    Section: 8.3.5.9, Paragraph 1
    Page: 41
    Change: replace “encapsulate” with “'contain'”

    Section: 8.3.7.9.2, Table 8.41, protocolVersion and VendorId rows
    Page: 59
    Change: replace “'to encapsulate subsequent Submessages'” with “"for subsequent Submessages”"
    Change 'vendor that encapsulated subsequent submessages' with “'vendor that originated the subsequent submessages' ”

    Section: 8.4.10.3
    Page: 105
    Change: replace “'encapsulated”' with “'maintained”'

    Section: 8.4.11.1.2
    Page: 110
    Change: replace 'the DATA message encapsulates' with 'the DATA message contains'

    Section: 8.4.12.1.2
    Page: 112
    Change: replace 'the DATA message encapsulates' with 'the DATA message contains'

    Section: 8.5.3.2, Table 8.73, expectesInlineQos row
    Page: 126
    Change: replace '“encapsulated”' with '“included'”

    Section 9.4.2.12
    Page: 166
    Change: replace 'process used to encapsulate' with 'process used to encode'

    Section: 9.6.2.2, Paragraphs 4-5
    Page: 181
    Change: replace “'encapsulates'” with “'contains'”; replace “'encapsulated'” with “'represented'” (twice)

    Section: 9.6.2.2.2
    Page: 182
    Change: replace “'used to encapsulate the data'” with '“used for the data'”

    Section: 9.6.3
    Page: 187
    Change: replace “'are encapsulated'” with “'are contained'”

    Section: 9.6.3.3
    Page: 190
    Change: replace “'any unfilled bits in the KeyHash_t after all the key fields have been encapsulated shall be set to zero' with 'any unfilled bits in the KeyHash_t shall be set to zero”'

    Page: 191
    Change: replace “'encapsulated as' with 'represented as'

    Section: 10
    This is handled on a separate issue.

    Encapsulation
    -------------------

    Section 6.2 change 'data encapsulation' to 'data representation' (twice)

    Section 8.3.3 change 'transport encapsulation' to 'transport headers'

    Section 8.3.5.9 change 'The encapsulation' to 'the representation'

    Section 8.3.5.12 change 'For additional information on data encapsulation see ...' to 'For additional information see ...'
    Section 8.3.5.13 change 'For additional information on data encapsulation see ...' to 'For additional information see ...'

    Table 8.34 change 'contains the encapsulation of the ...' to 'contains the ...' (twice in serializedPayload row).

    Table 8.35 serializedPayload row:
    Change 'Encapsulation of a consecutive ...' with ' A consecutive ...'
    Change 'contains the encapsulation of the ...' to 'contains the ...' (twice in serializedPayload row).

    Section 8.4.11.1.1 and 8.4.11.1.2
    Change 'The encapsulation is described' to 'The representation is described' (once on each section)

    Section: 9.4.2.11, Paragraphs 5, 7, 9
    Page: 165
    Change: “'CDR encapsulation”' with 'CDR representation' and 'ParameterList encapsulation' with 'ParameterList representation'

    Change 'These are two predefined values of the parameterId used for the encapsulation' with 'These are two predefined values of the parameterId:'

    Section 9.5 Change title to "Mapping to UDP/IP Transport Messages"
    Change body to:
    When RTPS is used over UDP/IP, each UDP/IP datagram shall contain exactly one or more complete RTPS Messages.

    Note: This is a change. Currently the requirement is one datagram one RTPS message.

    Section: 9.6.3.3
    Page: 190-191
    Change: replace “'“encapsulation'” with '“representation'” (seven times)

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace all uses of any form of 'Encapsulate'

    Encapsulation has a precise technical meaning from the CORBA spec (formal/11-11-02 section 9.3.3) and a similar meaning from chapter 10 of RTPS, neither of which matches most of the other uses of “encapsulation” throughout the RTPS spec. We are therefore replacing all uses of any form of the word 'encapsulate' with a different word.
    Three general rules of thumb were followed:

    1. In cases describing the contents of SubmessageElements or messages, we have replaced encapsulate with 'contain'.
    2. Anywhere that said 'data encapsulation' or 'CDR encapsulation' is replaced with 'data representation'.
    3. We have removed the phrase containing encapsulation all together in places where it was used unnecessarily.

    All other situations were dealt with on a case-by-case basis

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Remove the concept of Topic Kinds (With Key vs. No Key)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16954
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    This distinction is important for DDS, but not relevant for RTPS. There are places where RTPS deals with the Key as an independent unit of data (KeyFlag, etc.), but those are not relevant to the TopicKind_t which seems to be an artifact of an older version of the specification. The current protocol as written in this specification works the same way for both With Key and No Key topics. This issue seeks to remove the Topic Kind concept entirely from the specification.
    1. Section: 8.2.1.2, Table 8.2
    Page: 14
    Change: remove the table row for TopicKind_t
    2. Section: 8.2.1.3, Figure 8.2
    Page: 16
    Change: remove the topicKind attribute in Endpoint
    3. Section: 8.2.5, Figure 8.5
    Page: 21
    Change: remove the topicKind attribute in Endpoint
    4. Section: 8.2.6, Table 8.9
    Page: 23
    Change: remove the table row for TopicKind_t
    5. Section: 8.2.9.1, Figure 8.6
    Page: 25
    Change: remove the if() statements for W::topicKind
    6. Section: 8.2.9.1.3-4
    Page: 26-27
    Change: remove the if() statements for the_rtps_writer.topicKind and the paragraphs “This operation has no effect if the topicKind==NO_KEY).”
    7. Section: 8.3.3, Figure 8.8
    Page: 31
    Change: remove NoKeyData and NoKeyDataFrag
    8. Section: 8.3.7, Bullets 1-2,4
    Page: 43
    Change: remove the text “(NO_KEY Reader/Writer or WITH_KEY Reader/Writer)”
    9. Section: 8.3.7.2
    Page: 47
    Change: remove the text “(NO_KEY or WITH_KEY)”
    10. Section: 8.3.7.3
    Page: 49
    Change: remove the text “(NO_KEY or WITH_KEY)”
    11. Section: 8.3.7.2, 3rd Bullet
    Page: 63
    Change: remove the text referring to “keyed topics”
    12. Section: 8.4.4
    Page: 69-70
    Change: remove all references to topicKind, WITH_KEY, NO_KEY, etc.
    13. Section: 8.4.7.1, Figure 8.15
    Page: 72
    Change: remove the topicKind attribute in Endpoint
    14. Section: 8.4.8.1
    Page: 83
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY”
    15. Section: 8.4.8.1, Figure 8.16
    Page: 84
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY”

    16. Section: 8.4.8.2
    Page: 85
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY” and “NO_KEY”
    17. Section: 8.4.8.2, Figure 8.17
    Page: 86
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY”
    18. Section: 8.4.9.1
    Page: 90
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY” and “NO_KEY”
    19. Section: 8.4.9.1, Figure 8.18
    Page: 90
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY”
    20. Section: 8.4.9.2
    Page: 93
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY” and “NO_KEY”
    21. Section: 8.4.9.2, Figure 8.19
    Page: 94
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY”

    22. Section: 8.4.10.1, Figure 8.21
    Page: 102
    Change: remove the topicKind attribute in Endpoint

    23. Section: 8.4.11.1
    Page: 109
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY” and “NO_KEY”
    24. Section: 8.4.11.1, Figure 8.22
    Page: 110
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY”

    25. Section: 8.4.12.1
    Page: 111
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY” and “NO_KEY”
    26. Section: 8.4.12.1, Figure 8.23
    Page: 111
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY”

    27. Section: 8.4.12.2
    Page: 113
    Change: remove “WITH_KEY” and “NO_KEY”

    28. Section: 8.4.12.3, Figure 8.25
    Page: 117
    Change: remove “NOKEYDATA” alternative

    29. Section: 8.5.3.3, Tables 8.74 and 8.75
    Page: 129
    Change: remove topicKind rows from both tables

    30. Section: 9.3.2, Table 9.4
    Page: 155
    Change: remove the “TopicKind_t” row

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Limit the use of TopicKind to the places where it matters

    The protocol works the same whether or not a Topic is keyed; the distinction was therefore unnecessary in many places and was removed.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT
  • Attachments:

Key attributes and Regular attributes of a topic should be individually de-serializable

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16558
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Angelo Corsaro)
  • Summary:

    Key attributes and Regular attributes of a topic should be individually de-serializable (or at least make the keyhash compulsory)

    [Nature] Architectural
    [Severity] Major

    [Description]
    The "DDS Interoperability Wire Protocol v2.1" defines a a serialization format for topic types in which
    it is not easy, nor efficient, to simply get access to the key of a given topic. This has to do with how CDR
    serializes structs but could be worked around with the new X-Types specification.
    In essence the problem is that some applications such as DDS routers (such as the PrismTech BlendBox)
    require to perform some operations that while requiring a knowledge of the instance do not require the deserialization
    of the data payload.

    [Resolution]
    For DDS implementation compatible with the X-Types ensure that the regular data attributes and the key attributes are serialized
    in different chunks and thus individually accessible in an efficient manner – meaning to access the key I would prefer not to scan all
    the regular attributes.

    For non X-Types compatible DDS implementations make the KeyHash compulsory, meaning require DDS compliant implementation to
    always send a key-hash along with a Data submessage.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No immediate need to add individual serialization of keys and regular attributes

    The RTF does not see an immediate need to add the proposed functionality to the specification.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

DDSI/RTPS Key MD5 Hash

  • Legacy Issue Number: 15912
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Angelo Corsaro)
  • Summary:

    In section 8.7.9 of the DDSI/RTPS v2.1 protocol is described the KeyHash sub-message-element representing the MD5 hash of the key for the Data sub-message to which it belongs.

    The specification does not mandate the use of the KeyHash all keyed topics – implementations are free to include it or not. However, if implementations are not including the KeyHash the only way to get a clue on the Topic Instance to which the received samples belongs is to de-serialize the payload.

    This leads two at least two problems, (1) DDSI/RTPS routers are forced to de-serialize the data payload even if no content transformation have to be performed and (2) DDS Implementations are forced to deserialize eagerly in order to manage instances, thus preventing DDS implementations to do lazy deserialization (which is now possible with the API provided by the new C++/Java PSM).

    The suggested resolution is to require that Data SubMessage for keyed topic shall always include the KeyHash submessage element.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Wed, 5 Jan 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No immediate need to require sending the Keyhash with each sample

    The RTF does not see an immediate need to add the proposed functionality to the specification.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Incorrect/misleading description of KeyHash computation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19730
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.6.3.3 KeyHash (PID_KEY_HASH) says that the KeyHash is either computed as the CDR Big-Endian encapsulation of all the Key fields in sequence, or else as the MD5 of that "CDR Big-Endian encapsulation of all the Key fields in sequence" the decision is based on whether the "CDR Big-Endian encapsulation of all the Key fields in sequence" for that data-type is known to always fit into the 16-byte KeyHash.

    However the text in the first bullet says "If the maximum size of the sequential CDR encapsulation of all the key fields is guaranteed to be less than 128 bits, then the KeyHash shall be computed...

    This is misleading as it leave indeterminate the case when the "the maximum size of the sequential CDR encapsulation of all the key fields" is exactly 128 bits. In this case if the sentence is interpreted to mean "strictly less than 128" then an MD5 should be used. If it is interpreted to mean "less or equal" then no MD5 should be applied.

    Unfortunately this situation occurs on the builtin-topic types because the GUIDs are exactly 16 bytes.

    Proposed Resolution:
    In Section 9.6.3.3 KeyHash (PID_KEY_HASH). In the first bullet, replace:
    "If the maximum size of the sequential CDR encapsulation of all the key fields is guaranteed to be less than 128 bits,"

    With
    "If the maximum size of the sequential CDR encapsulation of all the key fields is guaranteed to be less or equal than 128 bits,"

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the KeyHash computation in the case of a CDR encapsulation of exactly 128 bits

    The language describing when to use an MD5 to compute the KeyHash has been clarified to reflect that no MD5 should be used is the serialized length of the key fields is less that or equal to 128 bits, as opposed to strictly less than.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Sending a HeartBeat message when there is no data is unspecified

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    Sending a HeartBeat message when a writer has no data to announce is unspecified.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:47 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update the definition of the HeartBeat Submessage to allow situations in which the Writer has no data to announce

    The HeartBeat submessage has been updated to better handle the situation in which a Writer has no data in its cache to announce.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Link to RTPS VendorId web page is broken

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MORSE-Corp ( Eddy Scott)
  • Summary:

    The web link pointed to by the specification: http://www.omgwiki.org/dds/content/page/dds-rtps-vendor-andproduct-ids results in a page not found returned from the server. A brief search of the internet for the list of VendorIds results in nothing found.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:29 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Update URL for assigned vendor ids *

    The URL for the assigned vendor and product IDs has been updated to point to a valid location with that information.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Locator_t kind needs a reserved range and a range for vendor extensions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19694
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    The Locator_t contains an integer field that identifies the type of locator. Currently only the values -1, 0, 1, 2 are defined. Which correspond to reserved values as well as UDPv4 and UDPv6.

    Future revisions of the protocol may define additional kinds for things like TCP v4, TCPv6, shared memory and other transports.

    At the same time vendors are using this field to identify their own custom transports.

    To avoid collisions with future revisions of the protocol, the RTPS specification should reserve a range. For example, all kinds with values less than 0x00008000. These values should be reserved for future revisions of the protocol. Vendors that want to define their custom transport should use Locator_t kind with values between 0x00008000 and 0x0000FFFF (inclusive). And these values should be interpreted in the context of the RTPS vendorId so that different vendors can use the same value to mean different things.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.2 — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reserve protocol and vendor specific ranges for the Locator_t kind

    To avoid future conflicts with vendor-specific Locator_t kinds, ranges have been reserved for the protocol, for vendors, and for users.
    0x00000003 - 0x000001f are reserved for vendors
    0x00000020 - 0x00007ffff for future use by the spec.
    0x00008000-0x01FFFFFF (inclusive) for use by vendors.
    0x02000000 and greater are reserved for third-party add-ons

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Some constants specified in PSM table 9.4 conflict with the ones used in wireshark

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19508
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Gerardo Pardo-Castellote)
  • Summary:

    In table 9.4 the the PSM RTPS define ReliabilityKind_t defines RELIABLE as having the value 3. However the Wireshark packet dissector defines ReliabilityKind_t RELIABLE as having the value 2.

    In table 9.4 the PSM RTPS specification defines LOCATOR_KIND_UDPv6 having the value 2. However the Wireshark packet dissector defines LOCATOR_KIND_UDPv6 as having the value 8.

    The vendors interoperate and used Wireshark to fine-tune their discovery therefore they are actually using the Wireshark-defined values rather than the ones in table 9.4

    Proposed resolution:

    Modify Table 9.4 entry for ReliabilityKind_t from:
    #define RELIABLE 3

    to
    #define RELIABLE 2

    Modify Table 9.4 entry for Locator_t from:
    #define LOCATOR_KIND_UDPv6 2

    to
    #define LOCATOR_KIND_UDPv6 8

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Thu, 3 Jul 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Change the value of RELIABLE_RELIABILITY and add a description of how it is marshalled *

    RELIABLE_RELIABILITY is currently defined with the value 3, however in practice all implementations are using 2, so the value has been changed in the spec.

    It was also noted that the values in the RTPS spec differ from the API-level values defined in the DDS spec. Therefore, a description of how to marshal the DDS-defined ReliabilityQosPolicy on the wire.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Referencing current version of DDS spec (was: Clarification of link comment)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19237
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( James Pope)
  • Summary:

    Please excuse my learning curve here.

    Section 6.1 says that this formal is a supplement to Version 1.1 formal, However there is now a version 1.2. That MIGHT suggest that aspects of 1.2 is not within interoperability to this specification. and that this one is interoperable to 1.1. Which I understand is across major versions and not a mandate.

    Anyway Please clareify.
    Is there a document that has version differences overview. If so a reference to that would be value added as well.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.1 — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update references to the DDS Spec with the current 1.4 version

    Replace references to DDS version 1.2 with the most current version, 1.4

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

The Writer Liveliness Protocol should be removed

  • Legacy Issue Number: 17285
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Angelo Corsaro)
  • Summary:

    The DDSI v2.1 specification describes in section 8.4.13 the Writer Liveliness Protocol as the mechanism used by participants to assess the liveliness of their contained data writers (with automatic liveliness).

    The Writer Liveliness Protocol is specified as mandatory for compliant implementations.

    The first remark is that the Writer Liveliness Protocol is not required at all for interoperability, thus it should not be a mandatory requirement for compliant implementation. This is not only easy to reason about, but wireshark captures made during the DDS interoperability demo of the past March 2012 showed how different DDS implementations could work w/o using this protocol.

    Beyond that, the protocol is simply superfluous as DataWriter liveliness can be anyway asserted via the Participant Liveliness, this in turns is asserted by the participant discovery protocol.

    Beyond the potential waste of resource required by yet another periodic information flow, what seems very odd is the choices of QoS for the built-in entities that write this periodic message. As described in section 8.4.13.3 these built-int entities communicate reliably and have a history set to KeepLast(1), along with TransientLocal durability.

    This QoS settings only "works" best for those implementations that tie the reliability send queue to the writer history but is less than ideal for those that rightfully decouple history and reliability.

    Anyway, however one looks at it this part of the specs seems bogus. In addition as mentioned above is not required for interoperability and generates yet another stream of periodic messages.

    The recommendation is to remove this section from the next version of the standard.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.1 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Need to remove the Writer Liveliness Protocol

    The RTF does not see a need to remove the Writer Liveliness Protocol from the specification.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section: 9.6.2.2.2, Table 9.13: Missing ParameterId mappings for RTPS fields

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16984
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 184-187
    Change: The following RTPS fields lack a mapping: ParticipantProxy::guidPrefix, ReaderProxy::remoteReaderGuid, WriterProxy::remoteWriterGuid. Table 9.10 indicates that they are optional, but they are not possible to encode without a mapping. Also, DiscoveredReaderData::contentFilterProperty (AKA DiscoveredReaderData::contentFilter in the PIM: these should be consistent) is lacking a mapping

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Cleanup up missing and unused ParameterId mappings

    Add a missing PID_ENDPOINT_GUID and map SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::key and PublicationBuiltinTopicData::key to it.

    Add missing mapping of DiscoveredReaderData::contentFilterProperty, TopicBuiltinTopicData::topic_data, SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::durability, PublicationBuiltinTopicData::ownership, SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::ownership, SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::presentation

    Remove the mapping of SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::lifespan, which is not present in DDS

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section: 9.6.2.2.2, Table 9.13: Missing ParameterId mappings for DDS fields

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16983
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 185
    Change: The following DDS fields lack a mapping: TopicBuiltinTopicData::topic_data, SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::durability, PublicationBuiltinTopicData::ownership, SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::ownership, SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::presentation, and the "key" field in Publication, Subscription, and Topic. Also, the mapped DDS field SubscriptionBuiltinTopicData::lifespan does not exist in DDS

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicates DDSIRTP23-8

    The resolution of DDSIRTP23-8 covers the resolutions of the missing/unnecessary mappings described in DDSIRTP23-9

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section: 9.6.2.2.2, Table 9.12: Duration_t not defined by PSM

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16982
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 184
    Change: Duration_t (used for PID_PARTICIPANT_LEASE_DURATION) is not defined in the PSM. Use Time_t instead?

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Define a PSM Mapping for Duration_t

    A PSM mapping of Duration_t has been defined in Table 9.4, specifying that the representation on the wire should be NTP.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 9.6.2.2.2, Table 9.12: Specify IPv4Address_t and Port_t

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16981
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 183-184
    Change: IPv4Address_t and Port_t are not defined anywhere in the specification

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Deprecate PIDs *

    There are a number of PIDs for address and port fields that are no longer necessary or used since the information that they identify is sent in the form of a Locator, we are therefore deprecating these PIDs:
    PID_MULTICAST_IPADDRESS
    PID_DEFAULT_UNICAST_IPADDRESS
    PID_DEFAULT_UNICAST_PORT
    PID_METATRAFFIC_UNICAST_IPADDRESS
    PID_METATRAFFIC_UNICAST_PORT
    PID_METATRAFFIC_MULTICAST_IPADDRESS
    PID_METATRAFFIC_MULTICAST_PORT

    PID_PARTICIPANT_BUILTIN_ENDPOINTS is also not used and will be deprecated. Implementations are using PID_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_SET instead.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 9.6.2.2: What is the "key" parameter?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16980
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 182
    Change: This section refers to a non-existent "key parameter" in the Data submessage.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify what the "key" parameter in section 9.6.2.2 is referring to

    In section 9.6.2.2 the phrase '"key" parameter' is referring to the parameters listed in table 9.10, the language used to indicate this should be clarified.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 9.6.2.2: Describe key-only encoding of built-in data types

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16979
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 181
    Change: This section under-specifies the key fields for all four data types. The "inherited" DDS structures do not provide a key field that is useful for RTPS because it is vendor-specific. This section should describe what a "key only" (KeyFlag==1) Data Submessage should contain as its payload for both SPDP and for all 3 types of SEDP. Table 9.13 indicates that Built-In Topic Keys can be encoded as a GUID, which has no correspondence to the actual definition of Built-In Topic Keys.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Describe the contents of the key-only Data Submessage for each of the Builtin Topic Types

    Descriptions have been added to clarify that a key-only submessage for each of the Built-in Topic types requires:
    PID_PARTICIPANT_GUID (for SPDP)
    PID_ENDPOINT_GUID (for SEDP)

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 9.6.2.2: Duration_t used in IDL, not defined

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16978
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 181
    Change: Duration_t (used for leaseDuration) is not defined in the PSM. Use Time_t instead?

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicates DDSIRTP23-10

    Merged with DDSIRTP23-10

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 8.7.6: RTPS support for semantics not present in DDS

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16970
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 147
    Change: There is no such "directed" or "peer-to-peer" function described by the DDS spec, therefore none is available to the user. If such a function should be used by RTPS to implement DDS communication, its use by RTPS must be described here. Otherwise remove this section.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove explicit dependency on DDS api

    Accept suggested approach of editing section 8.7 to remove explicit dependency on DDS APIs

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 8.5.3.2, Table 8.73: Make defaultUnicastLocatorList optional

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16969
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 127
    Change: In the row for defaultUnicastLocatorList, "at least one Locator must be present" constrains implementations unnecessarily. As long as each Endpoint has a locator, there is no need for the participant to have a default locator

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Do not make the defaultUnicastLocatorList optional

    As the proposed change breaks backwards compatibility, the decision has been made to defer this issue to a major revision of the protocol. The label RTPS3 has been added to indicate this and to aid in future searches of issues like this one.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section: 8.5.3.2, Figure 8.27 and Table 8.73

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16968
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 126-127
    Change: In the figure and the table, BuiltinEndpointSet_t is already a "set" so it should not also be an array with "[*]"

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Already fixed in 2.2

    Already fixed in 2.2

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 8.4.15.7: Scope of the count fields of Heartbeat and AckNack/NackFrag

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16967
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 123
    Change: Scope of counts is underspecified: is a Heartbeat count scoped to one Writer; is an AckNack/NackFrag count scoped to a Reader itself or to a Reader's conversation with a given Writer?

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the scope of the HeartBeat and AckNack Submessage Count fields and how to deal with overflow in the count fields

    The scope of the count fields of the HeartBeat and AckNack have been clarified to make it clear that it is up to the implementation if it keeps track of each endpoint separately or reuses the epoch across endpoints as long as the epoch changes from the previous one sent to an endpoint.

    Clarification as to how overflow in these fields should be handled by an implementation has also been added.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 8.4.14.1.1, Bullet 3: Put precise bounds on the fragment size

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16966
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 120
    Change: Fragment size should be allowed to be equal to (instead of strictly greater than) 1KB, also define KB as 1024 bytes to avoid the KB/KiB issue (1000 vs. 1024).

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the lower bound for fragment sizes

    We see no need to specify the lower bound for fragment sizes so we will remove that requirement.

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Section 8.4.8.1.4: When does Best-Effort Stateless Writer send a GAP

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16964
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OCI ( Adam Mitz)
  • Summary:

    Page: 85
    Change: Figure 8.16 notes that transition T4 can send a GAP, but this section doesn't describe when/how to send a GAP.

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is resolved as part of DDSIRTP23-20

    This issue is resolved as part of DDSIRTP23-20

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT

Rename BuiltinEndpointKind and add description

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11034
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Ken Brophy)
  • Summary:

    Source:
    Real-Time Innovations, Inc. (Ken Brophy, ken@rti.com)
    Summary:
    This type is actually a set of boolean flags and so should be renamed to reflect its actual intention. Additionally, the description for this type is missing from Table 9.4.

    Proposed Resolution:
    Rename the type from BuiltinEndpointKind to BuiltinEndpointSet_t. Provide an entry in Table 9.4 to describe the type.

    Revised Text:
    In Table 8.77, the third row from the end (the cell in the first column reads "availableBuiltinEndpoints"), replace "BuiltinEndpointKind" with "BuiltinEndpointSet_t."

    Replace Figure 8.26 with:

    In Table 9.4, add the following row to the end of the table:

    BuiltinEndpointSet_t Mapping of the type
    typedef unsigned long BuiltinEndpointSet_t;
    where
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_ANNOUNCER 0x00000001 << 0;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_DETECTOR 0x00000001 << 1;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PUBLICATION_ANNOUNCER 0x00000001 << 2;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PUBLICATION_DETECTOR 0x00000001 << 3;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_SUBSCRIPTION_ANNOUNCER 0x00000001 << 4;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_SUBSCRIPTION_DETECTOR 0x00000001 << 5;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_PROXY_ANNOUNCER 0x00000001 << 6;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_PROXY_DETECTOR 0x00000001 << 7;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_STATE_ANNOUNCER 0x00000001 << 8;
    #define DISC_BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_STATE_DETECTOR 0x00000001 << 9;
    #define BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_MESSAGE_DATA_WRITER 0x00000001 << 10;
    #define BUILTIN_ENDPOINT_PARTICIPANT_MESSAGE_DATA_READER 0x00000001 << 11;

  • Reported: DDSI-RTPS 2.0b1 — Wed, 23 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — DDSI-RTPS 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue was already resolved

    This issue was already resolved as part of the first FTF. It must have been incorrectly imported when tranitioning to Jira

  • Updated: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:38 GMT