# First draft of the UDRAL DSDL namespace **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [September 15, 2021, 9:03pm UTC](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/first-draft-of-the-udral-dsdl-namespace/1438 "2021-09-15T21:03:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 11
**Author:** ![auturgy](https://forum.opencyphal.org/user_avatar/forum.opencyphal.org/auturgy/32/845_2.png) [@auturgy](https://forum.opencyphal.org/u/auturgy)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2021, 2:26am UTC](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/first-draft-of-the-udral-dsdl-namespace/1438/11 "2021-09-19T02:26:30Z")
The issues raised here: [https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/meeting-minutes-july-21-2021-utc-udral-call/1365](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/meeting-minutes-july-21-2021-utc-udral-call/1365) and [https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/uavcan-drone-application-layer-sig-guidelines/1280/16](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/uavcan-drone-application-layer-sig-guidelines/1280/16) provide a good summary of the requirements a UDRAL proposal should meet. The definitions in the PR are nothing but find/replace drone/udral on the DS-015 definitions. With no attempt to address the shortfalls identified in that message set, I see no reason to expect different feedback on them. As I’ve mentioned before, I think we need to get the design agreed and the tooling in place before publishing message definitions. I don’t think we’re at that point yet. I’d also suggest that as definitions are developed we leave them in a branch until they’re iterated, agreed, and stable. MAVLink has demonstrated many times that WIP messages have a habit of making their way into production systems, making it very difficult to iterate and change them. That’s why in MAVLink we’ve moved away from WIP messages in favour of development.xml (which is annoying, but a necessary compromise given the workflows in that project). --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/first-draft-of-the-udral-dsdl-namespace/1438)._