Maximilian Linhoff

As the only difference between DL2 and DL3 is the added IRFs, this does not matter for the event list format, it would be the same for DL2 and DL3,...

Ok, I see that it's probably better to be kept as is, however I think we should then add some clarifications to the standard on what is allowed or expected...

Ok, I assume that also answers what my next question would have been: why it was decided to use binary table extensions with a single row instead of image hdus...

@registerrier yes, this is exactly what I feared. That currently this standard is too under-specified to be useful on its own. So at least adding `ENERGY` and `THETA` for the...

Yes, this is what I proposed in my last comment, an additional ENERGREF or ENERGY or how we want to call it. Btw, FITS column names are not bound to...

@adonath actually, the IRFs are stored in a single rows in the tables. The columns don't need to have the same shape, e.g. it would be perfectly valid to store:...

I think it's actually both. But in the context of full enclosure vs. point-like, @javierrico is correct. The difference that matters is that IRFs are stored dependent on field of...

> You always assume a true source position when you apply an IRF, the true position (as well as true energy) is an argument of the IRF. Yes, but I...

> But this is not true that all IRFs components are stored for the full-enclosure as a function of the distance from the source position. Only the PSF. Yes, this...

I know. But how should this affect the question? Are you proposing to remove the comments about file format agnosticism and fully commit to being a FITS based standard?