Subject: Re: 1076-2000
From: Jayaram Bhasker (jbhasker@cadence.com)
Date: Fri May 26 2000 - 05:04:07 PDT
Pual:
Thanks for your response. I wasnt aware of this:
>> Actually, it is in the process of being published as we speak.
I withdraw my objection.
- bhasker
> From owner-stds-vasg@ieee.org Thu May 25 15:08 EDT 2000
> From: "Paul J. Menchini" <mench@mench.com>
> Subject: Re: 1076-2000
> To: stds-vasg@ieee.org
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:55:50 -0400 (EDT)
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: owner-stds-vasg@ieee.org
> Reply-To: stds-vasg@ieee.org
> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-vasg@majordomo.ieee.org>
> X-Listname: stds-vasg
> X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
> X-Moderator-Address: stds-vasg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
> X-Received: By mailgate.Cadence.COM as MAA11987 at Thu May 25 12:08:47 2000
>
>
> Bhasker,
>
> > I noticed that the draft P1076-2000-D3 talks about changes from
> > 1076a-2000, as compared to 1076-1993. In fact, Annex D has a title
> > to this effect.
>
> > Given the fact that 1076a never got published, it would be confusing
> > to readers to base this standard on an unpublished document.
>
> Actually, it is in the process of being published as we speak. Also,
> one of the requirements for getting 1076a approved was to base the
> next release of 1076 on 1076a.
>
> > I think all changes marked in this document, including Annex D, must
> > be with respect to 1076-1993.
>
> No, they're with respect to 1076a-2000.
>
> > I agree that in the final standard the change bars/corrections will
> > not show up. But at least Annex D needs to be corrected.
>
> Not a good idea, IMHO. RevCom will not then be aware of the fact that
> it was based on 1076a and might therefore reject it out of hand.
>
> Paul
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 26 2000 - 05:20:55 PDT