[Sat Extension] Additional acquisition parameters

[emmanuelmathot]

Proposed Changes:

1. [Sat extension] Additional acquisition parameters

PR Checklist:

• This PR is made against the dev branch (all proposed changes except releases should be against dev, not master).
• This PR has no breaking changes.
• I have added my changes to the CHANGELOG or a CHANGELOG entry is not required.
• This PR affects the STAC API spec, and I have opened issue/PR #XXX to track the change.

[emmanuelmathot]

Hello. Can we move on this PR? @m-mohr Do the reviews need more clarifications?

[cholmes]

Overall I think this is looking good. I made a couple comments, but I think the overall thing is just add a bit more 'why' to the descriptions, help people understand what these are used for. But thanks for the contribution, it's great to see these suggestions come from working with the spec and data.

[m-mohr]

See comments :-)

[cholmes]

Looks good to me, with one minor english tweak. Thanks!

[m-mohr]

So it's looks good to be merged in the spec. I'm personally neutral on these changes, but I need to approve after I have requested changes so I'll approve to unblock the merge. Nevertheless, I'd be happy if more data providers could look over the changes and approve them. So I'm not merging myself, although the required number of 2 reviewers have been reached.

[emmanuelmathot]

So it's looks good to be merged in the spec. I'm personally neutral on these changes, but I need to approve after I have requested changes so I'll approve to unblock the merge. Nevertheless, I'd be happy if more data providers could look over the changes and approve them. So I'm not merging myself, although the required number of 2 reviewers have been reached.

Ok, so how do we proceed? Is there something we can do?

[m-mohr]

@emmanuelmathot Maybe get another "independent" voice that confirms that these changes make sense to them as well and/or they use these fields?

[cholmes]

I'm fine to merge this. If it was in core I'd want more independent review, but I'm ok in an extension. I think it's good to provide more optional fields, instead of making everyone come up with their own. If one of the field names ends up totally wrong we can deprecate it and add a new one, without breaking backwards compatability.