Description
At the June 19th meeting of the Infrastructure Framework Subcommittee, the members discussed the following topics:
1. TOPIC – Should we remove DistributionReference from the DE 2.0? (Yes, the consensus is to remove the DistributionReference to simplify the schema and provide a more streamlined mechanism for updating messages by reusing the same message id, namely DistributionID. The specification will be amended to note that to guarantee uniqueness, one should check both the SenderID and the DistributionID. )
2. TOPIC – How do we resolve the issue of whether multiple TargetAreas are treated as a union or an intersection? (We haven't resolved this, but it appears that we should because Gary notes instances where it is causing confusion and different implementors are doing different things. )
3. TOPIC – Should AreaKind be restricted to an enumeration of “SourceTargetArea” and “DistributionTargetArea” as opposed to allowing any kind of area? (Yes, the consensus is that this restriction is acceptable, effectively simplifying the concept of how TargetAreas should be considered for use in the DE. )
4. TOPIC – Can we replace IncidentID with ContentID? (No, not without losing the functionality to specify IncidentID. )
5. TOPIC – Should we maintain SenderRole and RecipientRole either by element or by specifying a DescriptorList “kind” or simply treat them all as keywords using the proposed DescriptorList? (Based on inputs from Gary and Jeff, there appear good reasons why we should maintain SenderRole and RecipientRole either by element or by specifying a DescriptorList “kind”. Just as we specify AreaKind with “SourceTargetArea” or “DistributionTargetArea”, it's important for emergency routing to define the roles of sender and recipient and the original reason for creating the DE was based on SenderRole and RecipientRole. )
