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.