Issue 18315: obtained only changed parameters (gems-rtf) Source: Amergint Technologies (Mr. Rob Andzik, andzik(at)amergint.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Received a request for either an asynchronous push or a new message type that provides changes only. This was an optional requirement in the original RFP Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 13, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== M-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Vrh8m8iQdMpMFWl2HlCLbj2P9qc+TfHRH2j29GZcykM=; b=wOn95xQp7o2+vtkoJQrqWpPa3pFKBLQpQa67zdBqT21yBfugdRA2Jr/zuN+DqfGnT4 33j4uOsMhOrTQtndqmRT2bgubPN+eWNapKlgJkTMYasMjgthUWjN+3SHffq41aram9Gs npXoBMTZ/wlfy2FAEHk0KvHSa6Hf7M7cRzz5WqEAzyD39T3K1dKN+qUUBGeQc/w/XQHA ybkXqMSl2suFz+cB5kQ1pD4du5ahf0KdzESAl8t39LZzaGQuytKcProXnwnjZ5t7t1NX RjobEAgMZTcn8bVM+w2eRTcI+JGZXK74SvMTOIhjfgwc7tUr6aNtNglZbAS4N+XpF70A vRCQ== From: Rob Andzik Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:15:34 -0800 Subject: GEMS issues To: Juergen Boldt Juergen We would like to file three new issues against GEMS for 1.3 obtained only changed parameters Received a request for either an asynchronous push or a new message type that provides changes only. This was an optional requirement in the original RFP X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=AE0Kn2+khDkuo3GJ6zGimR7M3O/nh2xr7SUBoJ8ju50=; b=E5ZtGZFsHw/ePYADUJ94w95VOzZu5qoFtua2IOJTqu8XuH47fLn1LZ9XUMfdfC82WL 2jObgo8Wqtoy5NqdDp+o5Hq+h+0VOSNrUabaN8Ft2Nbk4yuqrtXUj+3DDBMTjCa7YbQ3 /FvyGO51Wx81DiaGkWP2uXBljz6TsIefhA9KmhWf6GfaYCiVJwBW9cAJHd1SKBqszYec aRgvofobxKJLVV8kaiii2ij23Le+0F9d7y9pWjtBIaj0ORZMkPdm5/l2dXOGfeau3dCe 36ro2V437Awj/2YpRqo2XU0aZyuWp2eti5V9kLdfAngVNe2KCER5j61PgF/oZbiD183M VMQA== X-Received: by 10.152.116.19 with SMTP id js19mr8103390lab.72.1374268183028; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:09:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Rob Andzik Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:09:22 -0600 Subject: Issue 18315: obtained only changed parameters (DISCUSS) To: "gems-rtf@omg.org" X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkblxerzUWbKBE9u6Q/NWrywX3KILPKxzFZseYbuM12aVYnZ7RELXwfPJEpOsCFa+u7YjWe X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Issue 18315: obtained only changed parameters This is effectively a push and introduces pub/sub style complexity to the specification. We have discussed this a few times already and generally decided its not worth the complexity. We recently needed to implement this and defined a simple message format that might be incorporated in to the specification. The message looks like a SetConfigMessage with parameters and values, but a unique message name (AsyncConfigMessage). It is pushed from the GEMS device to the user at a prescribed interval. Keeping in mind that GEMS does not directly address the transport, I wonder if we could add this message to the spec without introducing pub/sub complexity. Maybe we just define the general behavior. Thoughts? X-Env-Sender: nthompson@rtlogic.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-220.messagelabs.com!1374500896!4053885!1 X-Originating-IP: [207.109.164.59] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.9; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked From: "Thompson, Nigel" To: "andzik@amergint.com" , "gems-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:48:15 -0600 Subject: RE: Issue 18315: obtained only changed parameters (DISCUSS) Thread-Topic: Issue 18315: obtained only changed parameters (DISCUSS) Thread-Index: Ac6ExFEpWduevrQHRYy7SUt78GzoJACHbNAg Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Mlf-Version: 7.4.2.7667 X-Mlf-UniqueId: o201307221348160039767 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Per our discussions on this, I do not see the benefit compared to the complexity this introduces. Nigel From: Rob Andzik [mailto:andzik@amergint.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 3:09 PM To: gems-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 18315: obtained only changed parameters (DISCUSS) Issue 18315: obtained only changed parameters This is effectively a push and introduces pub/sub style complexity to the specification. We have discussed this a few times already and generally decided its not worth the complexity. We recently needed to implement this and defined a simple message format that might be incorporated in to the specification. The message looks like a SetConfigMessage with parameters and values, but a unique message name (AsyncConfigMessage). It is pushed from the GEMS device to the user at a prescribed interval. Keeping in mind that GEMS does not directly address the transport, I wonder if we could add this message to the spec without introducing pub/sub complexity. Maybe we just define the general behavior. Thoughts? smime5.p7s smime5.p7s