#206 Inconsistent use of @MustUnderstand

[Peter Kranich]

Comment

1.) In case consumer detects inconsistent use of @MustUnderstand.

2.) What happens when @MustUnderstand=false?

Rationale / Proposed change

1.) Describe the rules, i.e. do not consume inconsistent MDIB parts or restrict compatibility.

2.) Describe rule for this case (Consumer does not understand the extension and does not have to understand the extension -> can safely ignore the extension).

[Björn Andersen]

1. @peterkranich: What do You consider inconsistent?
2. Should be covered by IEEE 11073-10207. If not already, it should probably be solved here: [ieee11073-10207]

[David]

Add example/note.

[David]

Ticket moved from /p/opensdc/p11073-10700-pre-ballot/147/

Can't be converted:

• _draft_d_x_r_y: D1
• _requirement: None
• _clause: 6.6
• _page: 26
• _line: 30ff

[Anna Feiler]

1.) Solved by BPKP TR1342?

[Peter Kranich]

So, there are the following situations with @ext:MustUnderstand and the consumer does not understand the extension:
Situation | Parent | Child | Rule
1.) | false | false | consumer can use parent and child element
2.) | false | true | consumer can use parent but must ignore child element
3.) | true | false | consumer must ignore the parent and child element
4.) | true | true | consumer must ignore the parent and child element (same as 3.)

If this is the correct interpretation of TR1342, I'm fine with it.

[Björn Andersen]

2.) Solved by note 1 to -10700 TR1490.

[Peter Kranich]

That clarifies it for me. Thanks!