Shawn Silverman

@mayanigrosh @sammysmallman See PR #20.

I can think of another reason not to include this tuple (manufacturer_id, device_model_id, software_version_id). It has to do with putting too much information inside a message description (i.e. instance of...

Here's another reason why I don't think this change should go into the schema (adding the 3-item tuple). The schema should be also applicable to the ESTA-defined messages (i.e. each...

The schema should be applicable to all messages, ESTA or not. I'm not necessarily taking about transmission. The schema is for _definition_, not transmission.

This is still an outstanding question: Why do the messages need to contain the version tuple as opposed to the system that retrieves the messages storing the messages tagged with...

> > an outstanding question: Why do the messages need to contain the version tuple as opposed to the system that retrieves the messages storing the messages tagged with the...

@mayanigrosh @sammysmallman Have a look at this and check for correctness and consistency?

> > @mayanigrosh @sammysmallman Have a look at this and check for correctness and consistency? > > I'd like to argue that the two new keys be required. Are you...

I'm still not sure I agree with this change. See my comment here: https://github.com/ssilverman/rdm-schema/issues/13#issuecomment-1132144970 Also see this comment: https://github.com/ssilverman/rdm-schema/issues/13#issuecomment-1132153042 In short, the data isn't necessary because each message doesn't need...

See: https://github.com/ssilverman/rdm-schema/pull/6#issuecomment-888343344