Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

R1542&R1543 are not ntp specific #182

Closed
AnnaFeiler opened this issue Jul 3, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #187
Closed

R1542&R1543 are not ntp specific #182

AnnaFeiler opened this issue Jul 3, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #187
Assignees
@ToddCooper
Labels
Comment Review Comment of some sort from somewhere sometime
Milestone
SDPi 1.1 Publication

Comments

@AnnaFeiler
Copy link
Collaborator

Section Number

Requirements R1542 & R1543

Priority

  • Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Issue

Both of those requirements are not specific to time synchronisation and should be placed somewhere else.

Proposed Change

Move requirements to some generic responsibilities section.
@AnnaFeiler AnnaFeiler added Comment Review Comment of some sort from somewhere sometime Comment NEW A submitted comment waiting to be reviewed and dispositioned labels Jul 3, 2023
@ToddCooper ToddCooper removed the Comment NEW A submitted comment waiting to be reviewed and dispositioned label Jul 10, 2023
@ToddCooper
Copy link
Collaborator

ToddCooper commented Jul 10, 2023 •
edited

@AnnaFeiler @d-gregorczyk What is the source of these two requirements? -10700? Other?

Anna says: Just based on feedback. Not from a standard requirement.

@ToddCooper
Copy link
Collaborator

@d-gregorczyk Is the core of this requirement by a SERVICE_CONSUMER that the user disables a function and someone somewhere should know (and it should be logged) vs. a notification that would go out on the SDC network? IOW is there any messaging that is generated on the net from these or is it simply that it should be notified / recorded ... ???

@ToddCooper ToddCooper added this to the SDPi 1.1 Publication milestone Jul 11, 2023
ToddCooper added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2023
@ToddCooper
Updated CHANGELOG.md + Editorial Section Name
5d24415 
Added an entry to the change log for Issue #182
Updated the SDPi-P SES Effectiveness section title to call out General Risk Controls
@ToddCooper ToddCooper mentioned this issue Jul 11, 2023
Merged
2 tasks
@ToddCooper ToddCooper linked a pull request Jul 11, 2023 that will close this issue
Add csf risk requirements to sdp p ses #187
Merged
2 tasks
@ToddCooper ToddCooper removed a link to a pull request Jul 11, 2023
Add csf risk requirements to sdp p ses #187
Merged
2 tasks
@ToddCooper ToddCooper linked a pull request Jul 11, 2023 that will close this issue
Add csf risk requirements to sdp p ses #187
Merged
2 tasks
AnnaFeiler pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 12, 2023
@ToddCooper
Add csf risk requirements to sdp p ses (#187)
f773c34 
* Moved Requirements from Use Case to SDPi-P SES

Moved R1542 and R1543 to the SDPi-P SES Effectiveness section.

* Updated CHANGELOG.md + Editorial Section Name

Added an entry to the change log for Issue #182
Updated the SDPi-P SES Effectiveness section title to call out General Risk Controls
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@ToddCooper ToddCooper

Labels
Comment Review Comment of some sort from somewhere sometime
Projects
None yet
Milestone
SDPi 1.1 Publication
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Add csf risk requirements to sdp p ses IHE/DEV.SDPi
2 participants
@ToddCooper @AnnaFeiler