LCR-786 is vague concerning its effect on DM (other than the addition of $40k to DM budget KLM20602A.PP to pay for the summit disks).

The vote result stated:

DM will remove the Base "network outage buffer" from the design of the data-handling system;

Previously 14 days was mentioned as being removed from the base and that suggests we have to do something about DMS-REQ-0177:

Base Facility Temporary Storage

Specification: The Base Facility shall provide at least a time minBaseDataStorage (or half of that amount, redundantly) of raw data storage in the event of Base to Archive Center network outage.

where minBaseDataStorage is 14 days, and that requirement is associated with DMS-REQ-0164 (Temporary Storage for Communications Links) and OSS-REQ-0054 (Base Data Buffer):

Specification: The LSST system shall provide a limited buffer for data (raw, processed, and engineering)
en route from the Base to the Archive Center, to allow science operations to proceed in the event of
communications loss between the Base and Archive. The system shall have sufficient capacity to store
all en route data for at least the design outage time, baseConnectivityLossTime [48 hours].

It was noted by Kian-Tat Lim that DMS-REQ-0177 might still be needed because some sort of buffer will be used for other parts of the system (but 0177 doesn't really say what the size should be).

Which design documents referred to in the LCR discuss the base buffer? Are those all now fixed as part of the re-plan?

After discussion with Kian-Tat Lim on Slack we think that a reasonable approach is:

1. Remove DMS-REQ-0177
2. DMS-REQ-0164 be adjusted to end with "at or before the source end of that link."
3. DMS-REQ-0318: Changing 3-day in discussion section to summit buffer size + 1 day.

For the OSS, my proposal is:

1. OSS-REQ-0004: change "reprocessing" to "processing" (leftover from AP move).
2. OSS-REQ-0052: summitBufferTransferTime should be rewritten as a transfer rate (2 days per day).  Note that DMS-REQ-0165 catches up processing at one day per day, but transfer can and should be faster.
3. OSS-REQ-0055: may be better to rewrite this as a rate as well, although acceptable as is
4. Remove OSS-REQ-0054.

Marking as done since a new LCR has been proposed: https://project.lsst.org/groups/ccb/node/2238