Special Working Group (SWG) West Forum 2, TUE 13 SEP, 1900-2100 US EDT Enumerations Special Working Group (SWG) West Forum 2, TUE 13 SEP, 1900-2100 US EDT

SISO-REF-010 AGENDA Introduction SIDEBAR: PR/CR SWG V22 Status Action Items Special Topics Non-human Life Forms (CR03461) Supplies (CR03584) CR Review: CR Status, SVN Repo Next Telecon: 27 SEP 2016

Predicting Hurricane Paths

PR/CR Special Working Group The SAC Special Working Group Reference for Problem Report / Change Request (SAC SWG PR/CR) is developing a SISO Reference Product that describes a standardized general process that could be used / adapted for use by any SISO group or committee needing to track PR/CRs (e.g., Study Groups, Product Development Groups, Product Support Groups). The SWG is also developing a template and instructions for a generalized PR/CR form. The SWG will maintain, support, and update the process and form as needed, and especially as feedback from users is received. The SWG will also recommend corresponding updates to SISO Administrative Products impacted by implementing a common PR/CR process and common PR/CR form. To join the SWG, subscribe to the SAC-SWG-PRCR discussion. (11 members)

V22 Status Approved by SAC Forwarded to EXCOM Approval is imminent! OP 0% OA 531 86% OH OF CA CJ 84 14% RA RJ RH RW TOTAL 615 Approved by SAC Forwarded to EXCOM Approval is imminent! V23 Change Block (once EXCOM approves V22)

Action Items (Working) AI Description Owner Status Target Version 192 Rework Supplies. Proposal submitted to reflector D. Ronnsfeldt Working TBD 253 Investigate a clearer definition of object specific appearance in relation to object type. L. Marrou 269 Should [UID 208] and [UID 209] be applied to the aggregate types [UID 207]? If so then the current schema/tools do not support this G. Shanks 276 Allow CRs that define UUIDs for implicit enumerations and update the toolset to support this (if it doesn't already). http://discussions.sisostds.org/threadview.aspx?threadid=54201 Ticket 167 280 CR1889 adding DE munitions - needs coordination with the DE tiger team J. Sorroche 286 Estimate effort on implementing 2973 to see which change block it applies 290 Look into Specific table (UID 24) for Radios and how they're used. Look into existing U.S. table for radios to see if all the "Other" entries should be in non-zero Subcategories. S. Jones v23 292 Determine if a CR to add things like record types or PDU types for records/PDUs not yet in an approved status, should get approved or go into OF and when such a CR can be resolved. Draft recommended updates to the OPMAN. This includes the new tables for new enumerations in those records. B. Murray

Action Items (Unassigned) AI Description 198 Implement web hosting capabilities 268 Other CRs relating to this category (2.9.225.1) are: CR01829, CR02283, CR02278B, CR01841, CR01858, CR02359, CR02292A. CRs relating to this category (2.9.225.1) that have been approved for block 00V20: CR02137A, CR02122B, CR02479A, CR02729, CR02093A, CR01888A 271 Datum ID 1. Clean up table, deprecate unused items, clarified used items. 2. Generate new UID66 template for new submissions. Disallow SimpleEnum template. 272 Clean up Appearance table description values to (possibly) not include "describes." Shorten the text so it still gets the point across. The description is NOT part of the protocol record (DIS or otherwise). 274 I noticed a minor issue when loading the XML into Excel. When an entry has a explicit value of 0, then it creates a duplicate in the loaded Excel file. I noticed this when I was comparing VDIS with the Draft and couldn’t match the Panel (Other) (5.1.0.6.4.1.0) with the appropriate 0-value. This is making me question the validity of having an implicit 0-entry and a different explicit one. Only one is valid on the wire. The quick solution would be if the XSLT could be modified to not include the implicit one if there’s an explicit, but I’m not sure if that’s possible. I’d like the Excel doc to have all of the valid wire-level values since it always gives out to Extra. 293 Scrub the entire set of enumerations to ensure consistency using hyphens in names, e.g., LPD-25 versus LPD 25. Also, consider other issues for consistency, like "cal" vs. "Cal" IEEE Style Guide 12.2: use space between number and SI acronym (unit), use leading zeroes for numbers < 1 (e.g., "12.7 mm" or "0.50 cal") 296 Review/update warhead enumerations to be consistent on wording and acronym usage (which goes in parentheses)

Non-Human Life Forms

Supplies ?

CR Review

? Questions?