Craig,
What you have pointed out looks reasonable, especially bullet 2 in the
IDE group paper. Take the IDC, if only the IDC ID is provided, which of
the many flags using it does the message go to/from. The flag state
info is the determinator.
Regards,
Tom
Capt. Thomas F. Heinan
Senior Vice President, Maritime Administration
International Registries, Inc.
Deputy Commissioner of Maritime Affairs
for The Republic of the Marshall Islands
Tel: +1-703-620-4880 ext 336
Cell: +1-703-618-3338
Fax: +1-703-476-8522
Email: theinan(a)register-iri.com <mailto:theinan@register-iri.com>
Web:
http://www.register-iri.com <
http://www.register-iri.com/>
________________________________
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of
HayleyCR(a)DFO-MPO.GC.CA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:02 PM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: PeverettT(a)DFO-MPO.GC.CA; RyanS(a)DFO-MPO.GC.CA
Subject: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] Comments on LRIT documents
Dear Colleagues,
Provided below are some comments with respect to the documents that we
worked on in Paris.
LRIT communications document (working group 3)
***************************************
* The Ship Name parameter in table 4 has been put back in the
document and left as an optional parameter. Section 16.1.3 of Resolution
MSC.210(81) states that contracting governments may pass along ship name
in order to obtain LRIT information.
1 The message ID parameter outlined in the various message
tables is intended to provide a unique number that will differentiate
the various messages in the LRIT system. It fails to accomplish this
objective since the combination of DC id and time stamp will not produce
a unique number. Creation of message ID has changed to the following
(message type parameter added since message IDs will be different
sizes):
* Request based messages: Message type, IMO#, contracting
government ID, time stamp.
1 Positional data report: Message type,
IMO#, DC ID, time stamp 2.
2 SAR Surpic: Message Type, contracting
government ID, time stamp.
3 Error messages: Message type, node ID,
time stamp.
4 DDP update: Message Type, time stamp.
* Time stamp parameter should be added to table 4 (ship position
request), table 5, table 6 and table 7.
International Data Exchange Document (working group 2)
********************************************
* Message ID and message type terminology used in the
document is also used in the communications document. It may be
beneficial to standardize on this type of terminology since the terms
are used differently in each document.
* The document states (page 3, 2.1.1.1) that requesting
data centers will include LRIT data center ID information in the
requesting message header. The data exchange would use this information
in routing of the request message. Currently, a slightly different
methodology is outlined in the communications specification. The ship's
flag state information is included in the requesting message as opposed
to a data center ID parameter. The data exchange would view the flag
state parameter and route to the appropriate data center. I believe both
methods are acceptable and we simply need to choose one method. However,
all contracting governments will have to know the data center that a
given flag is assigned to if the method described in the data exchange
is chosen (example: Canada, as a port state, has just received an NOA
from a USA ship. Canada must check a list to determine which data
center, the USA ship is reporting to. This is an extra step on the
contracting government's part).
* Receipt messages are not covered in communications
document.
* Response messages, other messages and SAR messages are
described in the communications document. I propose that they are
described in only one document in order to avoid confusion.
* I would expect to see a block diagram similar in concept
to the one outlined in the data center document. Each block would than
be described in the document.
Regards,
Craig Hayley
Electronics System Engineer
Canadian Coast Guard
PH: 709-772-7740