search

nasa / utm-apis

The collection of APIs for NASA's UTM project in the form of OpenAPI documents.
55 stars 35 forks source link

Clarify NegotiationAgreement.discovery_reference #130

Open jeremie-leproust opened 6 years ago

jeremie-leproust commented 6 years ago

https://github.com/nasa/utm-apis/blob/b78492020d31172c258be459c623535209ccf116/utm-domains/utm-domain-commons.yaml#L1497-L1510

Should we clarify that this field corresponds to the "other" USS (meaning the USS that participated in the negotiation but doesn't own the current operation)?

nasajoey commented 6 years ago

Had to add uss_name as an additional, partially redundant field for clarity. Then improved the documentation on discovery reference to reference whoever generated this message. This is still a messy field and this change isn't exactly what you asked for. I think to do what you are requesting, we'd probably need a discovery field for both USSs?

jeremie-leproust commented 6 years ago

It is a good point. I think I made my original comment based on the assumption that the negotiation agreement would be stored anyway in the USSOperation model, and then at least one of the USSs would already be clearly identified (the owner of the USSOperation). Here, since the negotiation agreement should be fully meaningful as a standalone model, I agree it probably makes sense to put information about both USSs in there, and then maybe have a discovery_reference_of_originator field and a discovery_reference_of_receiver field.

nasajoey commented 5 years ago

Does this ticket change at all given that we are indeed shoving the NA into the Operation model?

jeremie-leproust commented 5 years ago

As long as it is clear what are the two USSs that negotiated together (which is the originator and which is the receiver), we should be good :)