Gord,
I am not sure how we can respond to your feedback in any meaningful way.
A sense of unease about the possibility that there is a better approach
is not something we can address. There is always that possibility, and
all we can do is put reasonable effort into avoiding it.
This proposal may be new to you, so that you haven't had enough time to
fully consider it. But you should be aware that the initial concept was
proposed over a year and a half ago to IEEE 1364. It started active
discussion and development under 1364 about a year ago. Some very
capable and knowledgeable people have devoted a lot of time to the design
and review of the approach. Cadence has a prototype implementation.
I'm not sure what you would consider being "a bit more careful."
With regard to two-state types, there have been several possible
approaches proposed, none of which are incompatible with this proposal.
There simply wasn't enough time to reach consensus on them within the
P1800 group, and make sure that sufficient effort had been put into
getting it right. Organizational issues have prevented considering this
proposal under P1800 until recently.
If you can point out any specific flaws in the proposal, or suggest any
alternatives that would work better overall, we would be glad to consider
them.
Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com
Received on Wed Nov 17 21:14:25 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 17 2004 - 21:14:32 PST