I recently bumped into this announcement: Certifiable DDS middleware for safety-critical systems! which picked my attention. This has in my opinion relevant technical implications (e.g. somehow implies the leading company behind XRCE DDS is dropping the this approach and instead focusing back on fully fledged RTPS interoperability , which is fantastic from an architectural perspective).
From the description and announcements, this sounds like Alexandru Kampmann’s (@AKampmann) embeddedRTPS. Can you confirm if this is the case? If so and this is a fork, would you be contributing back to the original project? In addition, here’re a few additional concerns that are worth discussing:
Does this mean XRCE DDS (technical) approach will not be evolved further?
Is eProsima turning from micro-ROS to embeddedRTPS?
What does “certifiable” mean? Safety Element out of Context (SEooC)?
Safe DDS has nothing to be with embedded RTPS. If any, it could be related to Fast DDS, but it is not the case either. We decided to start from zero.
No change of plans for XRCE-DDS. It is a different use case. XRCE-DDS is for very tiny devices, and safe DDS is for embedded devices with a little bit more resources.
@Jaime_Martin_Losa I did that, and my questions were ignored and deleted. I brought the conversation to the community because we need a public transparent forum (wherein you can’t “delete” my comments ). The implications of this are relevant. Many have been investing in the XRCE DDS route, this is a relevant change of direction in embedded.
Can you elaborate on this please. I find a one-to-one mapping of the tech characteristics detailed with embeddedRTPS. Also, @AKampmann and his co-authors, in his paper, already put quite a bit of emphasis in coming up with a “certifiable” implementation.
How is it different? What are the major differences? As embeddedRTPS, will it be MIT-licensed, or the usual Apache 2.0?
Again, can you elaborate on this? What are the minimum requirements for running Safe DDS? (maybe “surprisingly” the same ones embeddedRTPS has?)
Rather than legitimate questions, you launch some hypotheses already answered here. Safe DDS is a DDS implementation, not an RTPS implementation, developed from zero due to the exigent requirements of ISO 26262.
If you need more information, you can always call me, I will be happy to answer you, but for now, the posts we are producing are focused on our new product and its new characteristics, rather than comparing it with other initiatives.
@Jaime_Martin_Losa When you was talking about Safe DDS positioning itself to adhere and perhaps to be certified to the ISO 26262 safety standard.
What level of the ISO 26262 certification we could expect?
ASIL-B or ASIL-D ?
, which is fantastic from an architectural perspective).
). The implications of this are relevant. Many have been investing in the XRCE DDS route, this is a relevant change of direction in embedded.