tonyleblanc

We have had requests from labs for a way to connect manufacturing equipment to the LMS using a protocol that is more secure than the current TCP method. Ideally, this would incorporate an SSL certificate or something equally secure. As some companies may be looking at various approaches at present, perhaps we could discuss options via this forum in preparation for further discussions at Vision Expo East.

Thanks, Steve - as we find more labs with tight security requirements, we'd like to propose that the committee discuss the possibility of adding device interfaces via a more "standard" method - perhaps RESTful endpoints, optionally supporting SSL. Tony

Even though Paul didn't ask for comments when voting yes, I'll interject an opinion anyway. I'm voting we include the change because there are already equipment or LDS vendors who send records/label values that exceed the limit, so we are just acknowledging an existing reality. I agree with Dave that this likely affects host systems more than equipment vendors, but LDS vendors could also be impacted, if host systems start sending lengthy records to As with Dave, we've already relaxed our limits, so the acceptance or rejection of the change in the standard won't make any difference to us. Even though we are not an equipment vendor, if I were in that role and was concerned about making sure my equipment would experience no issues with any host system, then I might well decide to honour the 80-character limit for some period of time. I can't see that there is any downside to doing that for an equipment vendor.

Hi, Anat; Did you have a proposal for how you would represent the upper and lower limits, as well as the nominal base, for your Rx ranges, using a model similar to what Steve proposed? At first glance it appears that Steve's proposal could handle this by adding two additional columns for min and max base curve, using the existing column to represent "preferred" base curve, perhaps. The end result would be more complex and require additional boundary identifiers, but I think it could work. Is this along the lines of what you had in mind? (I do not want to presume to speak for you on this, but because this seems to be a Shamir-specific request you might be best able to suggest how this could be represented). A design such as you give may not be supported today by all LMS systems; I know in our case we would use upper and lower limits when they are provided by the LDS in response to a BRS request, which is what we do today for Shamir integrations, but we don't have a means of indicating multiple valid ranges of base curves for an Rx when we use a base curve chart. We can handle a 3-dimensional model, using sphere, cylinder, and add, but only to specify a nominal base. Of course, whether LMS systems today can support it does not impact how and whether we represent it in a new standard. Tony

I agree, there does not seem to be any existing labels which return the location of the distance MRP for all designs. Should we also have labels which define the location of the distance MRP relative to the center of the blank, for use by analyzers which check the lens before mounting?

For myself, I agree - it seems unnecessary to have a separate characteristic family which is uniquely used by the blank collection. I can't think of any requirement for characteristic family outside of the blanks.

The standard does not specify what index SLBP should be expressed in - in the opinion of others, should SLBP be expressed in PIND as with other prism labels?