Subject: Re: [lmap] First take on the Definition of Cycle_ID

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:08:47 +0100

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:31:47PM -0500, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> 
> Yes, for me, a cycle requires repetition over time. So the framework
> definition almost gets there by mentioning results that are 
> comparable, but it only deals with repetition *across MAs*.
> In the Framework def, a repeated measurement task would have the
> same Cycle-ID for every repetition, in every MA that performs the 
> the same repeated task, and we lose the ability to distinguish
> the repetitions over time (without use of additional info, like time).

Yes, the definition of the cycle-id has always been (as far as I can
remember) been a unique tag for a certain measurement cycle (e.g., the
FCC 2016 measurement campaign). Individual results are distinguished
by time, not by the cycle id.

Is there a specific reason to change that?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:12:56 +0100

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:21:53AM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > Does that help?
> 
> It helps a lot. 
> 
> The definition will need a little more text to explain and/or an example.
> 
> Looks good to me on the user side. We need to hear also the coder side. 
>

I do not think we should change the definition of cycle-id.

Al probably wants another ID. I am still unclear why this is needed
given that some larger platforms I have seen work without one (that is
the timestamp of the result record is sufficient to do the right
processing by the collector). Anyway, if Al feels strongly, he should
work this proposal out more fully I think.

/js