Service readiness level

In DS-015 we have the type reg.drone.srv.common.Arming that defines several service readiness levels applicable to all kinds of services:


@TSC21 proposes that the naming is ill-suited because arming is generally applicable only in the context of actuators but not other types of equipment like sensors or batteries.

What I am saying is that the concept of arm is something that is quite intrinsic to what you do in actuators. Not sensors. So the wording IMHO should not be applied the same way for both cases.

The question is: do we keep Arming or do we search for a better option?

  • Yes, keep Arming as-is. The term is flexible enough to be applicable beyond actuators.
  • No, consider an alternative proposal that I will post below. The term is not applicable to other types of equipment.

0 voters

I think arming should be only applicable to actuators that might harm the user physically. I think for the status of a sensor another definition should be used furthermore a sensor could include more levels.

1 Like

The architectural intent is to control all types of equipment using the same type, so it should be applicable to sensors and actuators alike. It is always possible to use dedicated subjects for actuators and sensors if desired.

The question here is whether this type should use the same wording or if it should be something else.

Can you please elaborate?

So if you want to control all types of equipment using the same type. I think the wording of arming might be wrong and give misconceptions. My opinion is that arming is related to activating the drone in a safe manner as described here (

About the more levels, sensors readiness could also be in a initialization/calibration state. Furthermore it’s is unkown in which ready state an equipment should be in case of degradation or complete failure.