ETSI's Bug Tracker - DENM | |||||
| View Issue Details | |||||
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
| 0006288 | DENM | Base Spec | public | 28-08-2012 16:21 | 29-08-2012 16:06 |
| Reporter | Sebastian Muellers | ||||
| Assigned To | |||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Platform | OS | OS Version | |||
| Product Version | v008 | ||||
| Target Version | Fixed in Version | v009 | |||
| Summary | 0006288: to use 'unavailable' rather than 'unknown' | ||||
| Description | Sue writes: In U.S., we do have "unavailable" value associated with each data element so that when it is not available, usually the most positive value will be used to indicate that. That kind of makes the after-market units "happy" so that they can still construct the message but are not required to fill in all the blanks, based on their capability. Should we change from 'unknown' to 'unavailable? | ||||
| Steps To Reproduce | |||||
| Additional Information | |||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Relationships | |||||
| Attached Files | |||||
| Issue History | |||||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change | ||
| 28-08-2012 16:21 | Sebastian Muellers | New Issue | |||
| 29-08-2012 16:06 | Sebastian Muellers | Status | new => closed | ||
| 29-08-2012 16:06 | Sebastian Muellers | Note Added: 0011092 | |||
| 29-08-2012 16:06 | Sebastian Muellers | Resolution | open => fixed | ||
| 29-08-2012 16:06 | Sebastian Muellers | Fixed in Version | => v009 | ||
| Notes | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||