Closed jiripetrzelka closed 7 months ago
There is no end state for an IIA. IIA can be changed forever. Something we opposed, but DG EAC thinks otherwise.
There is no end state for an IIA. IIA can be changed forever. Something we opposed, but DG EAC thinks otherwise.
@umesh-qs Can you please provide a link or more information as to when and where this position of DG EAC was articulated?
There is no end state for an IIA. IIA can be changed forever. Something we opposed, but DG EAC thinks otherwise.
@umesh-qs Can you please provide a link or more information as to when and where this position of DG EAC was articulated?
As far as I remember, it was discussed in one of the IF calls.
I have looked again at slides from IFs and I have found out that we, in fact, voted for the option that terminated-as-a-whole will not be an end state.
This chart is taken from slide 38 of 2023-06-21-InfrastructureForum.pdf at https://esci-sd.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ITSC/pages/113999873/Infrastructure+Forum+and+technical+workshops
I presume DG EAC then accepted these results and that is probably what Umesh refers to.
@janinamincer-daszkiewicz If I take your point 5 and the results of the voting, my conclusion is that systems are required to be prepared for this scenario. Can you please confirm this?
@janinamincer-daszkiewicz If I take your point 5 and the results of the voting, my conclusion is that systems are required to be prepared for this scenario. Can you please confirm this?
Yes, I confirm.
If an IIA is terminated as a whole and this termination has been mutually approved, is it allowed to create another revision and revert this termination?
Since I haven't found that this would be explicitly forbidden anywhere in the specification, I assume that it might be forbidden implicitly, i.e. by inferring this conclusion from the fact that the scenario for termination provided at https://github.com/erasmus-without-paper/ewp-specs-api-iias/raw/stable-v7/scenarios-v6-v7/2023-12-01-TerminatedAsWhole.xlsx does not include reversion. However, such a conlusion does not seem definitive to me because we could also infer that such a scenario is missing because it is already obvious how the reversion generally works from https://github.com/erasmus-without-paper/ewp-specs-api-iias/files/14006300/2024-01-20-DeleteModifyScenarios.xlsx
@janinamincer-daszkiewicz Can you help me understand whether we as implementers should interpret the specification in this way: "Whatever is not clearly defined, is allowed." or "Whatever is not clearly defined, is forbidden"?
My apologies if this quandary has a clear explanation somewhere in the current specification, in which case I would like to ask for a link to the exact location where this is clarified.