Title: ATSMHS / MHS priority and ATS-Message-priority mismatch

PDR Reference: 97060016

Originator Reference: 
SARPs Document Reference: ATSMHS Section 3.1.2.3.4.3.4.3

Status: 	ACCEPTED -> 	PROPOSED	21/08/97
			 ->	RESOLVED	17/10/97


PDR Revision Date: 17/10/97

PDR Submission Date: 27/06/97

Submitting State/Organization: Aena, Spain

Submitting Author Name: Cid J.

Submitting Author E-mail Address: jcid@ugdna.aena.es

Submitting Author Supplemental Contact Information: Jesus CID 
AENA
Juan Ignacio de Tena, 14
28027 Madrid  SPAIN

SARPs Date: ICAO version 1.1 (Phuket output)

SARPs Language: english

Summary of Defect:
The priority element of an AMHS Message generated at a commercial UA is 
able to take the value <<urgent>> not only if the value of the 
priority-indicator in the "ATS-Message-Priority" is 'SS' but in any 
another case. That means that it exists the possibility of receiving an 
incoming AMHS message with the "ATS-Message- Priority" element set to 
'SS' and the "MHS priority" set to a different value of 'urgent'. There 
are neither provisions envisaged in the SARP nor recommendations in the 
Guidance Material about the actions to be performed by the AFTN/AMHS 
Gateway in such a situation.
Besides, it exists a special behaviour in the following situation: a 
IPM message is generated by a direct user with the  
"ATS-Message-Priority" set to 'SS', the "MHS priority" set to a 
different value of 'urgent'. Also, this subject IPM is able to have 
activated or not the 'receipt-notification-request'element. They can 
be found the following cases: 
- If the 'receipt-notification-request' was activated, according to 
the SARP (3.1.2.3.4.3.4.3), the priority of the 'RN' generated shall 
be the same of the subject IPM. In this case, it would be different 
from 'urgent'.
- If the 'receipt-notification-request' was not activated, according 
to the SARP (3.1.2.3.4.3.1.5), the priority of the IPM conveyed would 
be in accordance with the "ATS-Message-Priority" of the AFTN 
acknowledgement message. In this case, this "MHS priority" shall be 
'urgent' although the "MHS priority" of the subject IPM was setted to 
a different value of 'urgent'.

Assigned SME: Sub-Volume 3 SME

Proposed SARPs amendment:

A) amend 3.1.2.3.5.2.3.3 as follows:

replace current text which is:

"If the priority-indicator of a received AMHS message 
has the value "SS" and if the notification-requests 
element of either a primary-recipient, or a copy-recipient, or a 
blind-copy-recipient element has an abstract-value different from "rn" 
and if the responsibility element of the corresponding 
per-recipient-fields of the Message Transfer Envelope has the value 
"responsible", then an error situation shall be logged and reported to 
a control position for appropriate action."

with

"If the priority-indicator of a received AMHS message 
has the value "SS" and if the responsibility element
of the corresponding per-recipient-fields of the Message Transfer 
Envelope has the value "responsible", then an error situation shall be 
logged and reported to a control position for appropriate action if 
any of the following situations, or both, occurs:
a)      if the notification-requests element of either 
a primary-recipient, or a copy-recipient, or a blind-copy-recipient 
element has an abstract-value different from "rn"; or
b)      if the priority element of the Message Transfer 
Envelope has an abstract-value different from "urgent"."

B) amend 3.1.2.3.4.3.4.3 as follows:

replace current text which is:

"The element priority shall take the same value as that of the subject 
IPM."

with

"The element priority shall take the abstract-value "urgent"."

C) Table 3.1.2-9, Part 1, item 1.1.6: 
replace row which is currently:

"1.1.6   priority      M   M   M   T   see 3.1.2.3.4.3.4.3"

with:

"1.1.6   priority      M   M   M   G   see 3.1.2.3.4.3.4.3"




SME Recommendation to CCB: RESOLVED

CCB Decision:		RESOLVED