Missuse of term `subservice` in `PusTm` and `PusTc`

[borro0]

PusTm (and PusTc) use the term subservice, to fill in the PusTcDataFieldHeader.

However, the standard specifies that a message type identifier consist of two parts. The following snippets is taken from chapter 5.3.3.1 of ECSS-E-ST-70-41C

c. Each message type identifier shall be composed of:
1. the service type identifier of the service type that contains that message type;
2. a message subtype identifier that uniquely identifies that message type within that service type.

I think the term subservice is now confused with message sub type. These are not the same concepts. Sometimes they can overlap by coincidence.

Therefore I think subservice should be renamed to message_subtype in this Tc/Tm Header context.

[robamu]

sounds reasonable. The naming scheme comes from out internal terming, but it probably would be a good idea to use the standard names in the library.

[robamu]

Oh, i know where this naming scheme comes from as well: It is probably adopted from the PUS A naming scheme..