1448 Not possible to determine the restriction on number of BRCBs if rptMod=both
- Created
- 08 Oct 2015
- Status
- In Force (green)Closed: the solution is part of the standard. No further comments are taken. Show the workflow
- Part
- Part 6 (2009-12; Edition 2)
- Links
- None
- Page
- Clause
- Paragraph
- Category
- Issue for edition 2 of this part
Issue
During the IOP, SCTs should not determine the split of BRCBs/URCBs since the maximum number of reports does not differentiate. The Max is explicit enough. Need a mechanism to differentiate the number of BRCBs/URCBs.
Proposal
WG10 decided that a capability will be added to allow the declaration of the max brcbs. This capability will only be required in the case where rptMod=both. Otherwise, the capability will not be present.
One file is attached to this tissue. Sign in to open it.
| Discussion | Created |
|---|---|
|
In Force (green)
Agreed to add an optional attribute maxBuf to ConfReportControl to indicate the maximal number of BRCB instances.
ConfReportControl.maxBuf shall be an optional attribute of type unsignedInt, no default. Its value shall not be greater than sibling attribute ConfReportControl.max. If ConfReportControl.maxBuf is missing, the limit on the number of BRCB instances is ConfReportControl.max. Applicable for Amd 2.1 |
08 Dec 15 |
| Ballot Period Applicable for Amd 2.1. | 05 Nov 15 |
|
Discussion (red)
Agreed to add an optional attribute maxBuf to ConfReportControl to indicate the maximal number of BRCB instances.
ConfReportControl.maxBuf shall be an optional attribute of type unsignedInt, no default. Attribute maxBuf not be greater than sibling attribute ConfReportControl.max. If ConfReportControl.maxBuf is missing, the limit on the number of BRCB instances is ConfReportControl.max. |
26 Oct 15 |