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

v03 ETCTS parts header clarification #166

Closed
petersilva opened this issue Mar 6, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

v03 ETCTS parts header clarification #166

petersilva opened this issue Mar 6, 2019 · 2 comments
Assignees
@benlapETS
Labels
enhancement New feature or request likely-fixed likely fix is in the repository, success not confirmed yet.

Comments

@petersilva
Copy link
Contributor

given the direction from ET-CTS, it is obvious that the current formulation of the partition strategy header will not be acceptable. I have suggested an specification here:

MetPX/wmo_mesh#7

I think we should just implement it, and let people offer improvements. It is so difficult to discuss things that don't exist. Better to have something that does, then it can be tweaked.
@benlapETS benlapETS self-assigned this Mar 6, 2019
@benlapETS
Copy link
Contributor

benlapETS commented Mar 7, 2019 •
edited
Loading

What do we do when there is no parts? What seems to be the case for:

  • Remove
  • Link

@petersilva
Copy link
Contributor Author

only the 'integrity' field is mandatory. When integrity is 'remove' or 'link' then there are no corresponding 'size' or 'block' headers.

@benlapETS benlapETS added enhancement New feature or request likely-fixed likely fix is in the repository, success not confirmed yet. labels Mar 8, 2019
@petersilva petersilva mentioned this issue Mar 27, 2019
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@benlapETS benlapETS

Labels
enhancement New feature or request likely-fixed likely fix is in the repository, success not confirmed yet.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@petersilva @benlapETS