Some release versions are not displayed in new index page

[jmudge]

Some release versions are not displayed in the new index page and they should be included:

• OMA Converged IP Messaging - CPM, V2.1 is missing
• OMA LPP Extensions - LPPe, V1.0 and V1.1 missing
• OMA LwM2M OSCORE - ObjLwM2M_OSCORE, V2.0 is missing
• OMA Secure User Plane Location - SUPL, V2.1 is missing

[jpradocueva]

@jmudge we need to add OSCORE entry to the enablers.json file

[jpradocueva]

@jmudge The rest of missing Enablers are Candidate, which were superseded by an Approved or another Candidate

[jpradocueva]

@jmudge let's have a chat about the other pending issues.

[jmudge]

@jpradocueva I'm happy to have a chat about the pending issues.

Please note that the remaining releases are displayed in the current index page:

• CPM V2.1
• LPPe V1.0 and V1.1
• SUPL V2.1

LPPe V1.1, for example, was released within the last 2 years. A search reveals that both LPPe V1.0 and V1.1 are referenced by 3GPP and ETSI specifications. By removing the above releases from the new index page are we helping or hindering these standards organisations?

Should we check first with the WG Chairs before removing them?

[jpradocueva]

@jmudge the problem has been resolved. Please cross-check. Thanks

[jmudge]

@jpradocueva using the latest enablers-table-from-enablers-json-data branch, the following release versions are still not displayed in the new index page:

OMA Converged IP Messaging - CPM, V2.1 is missing
OMA LPP Extensions - LPPe, V1.0 and V1.1 missing
OMA Secure User Plane Location - SUPL, V2.1 is missing

I propose to ask the WG Chairs responsible for these enablers whether this is acceptable.

[jpradocueva]

@jmudge ok we will raise it with the group. From my side it is ok don´t display a Candidate that has been superseded by another candidate or an approved enabler.

[jmudge]

@jpradocueva the ARCOM and LOC WG Chairs have been contacted by email to ask them.

[jpradocueva]

@jmudge see Issue #83, it contains the requirements for the flag property that will allow to display or not any particular release independent of the previously defined criteria. This should be a magic bullet to resolve any possible criteria that are not in line with what has been defined so far.

[jmudge]

@jpradocueva this sounds very promising and should resolve this issue.

[jmudge]

Issue can be closed when #88 has been merged.