Closed alevere closed 4 years ago
agree.
Just to add some context. This is an issue when we send ONE command to multiple actuators. The UUID of the command is the same, so in the case of 3 responses, no matter if they are successful or not we don't know which response applies to a particular actuator since all of them use the same identifier.
This is an issue that will be common to a lot of profiles in systems that have a pub/sub or multicast. Having an 'actuator' field in the response makes sense to me. Question, should we close the issue here and reopen it on the language channel?
Yep, this is a general issue. It should be handled at the language-spec level
Alex, I do not feel good about closing this issue and reopen on the LSC because you brought it up and I think it would be disrespectful of me to close your issue. Do you agree with me and Vasileios, and if so will you close this one and move to LSC?
@alevere , will you read over this thread and let me close it here and reintroduce it at the Lang level?
That makes sense to me, sorry for missing this.
An issue for some environment is determining which actuator responded if an orchestrator receives three responses that appear similar (200 ok). I propose we require an SLPF to return asset_id or asset_tuple in order to determine what device sent a response. Helpful when true source is hidden (NAT, LB) or when using a broadcast/message bus.