How about this? Shalom ________________________________ From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:53 AM To: Alsop, Thomas R Cc: sv-bc Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of clause 12.5.3 Tom, He can't just copy and paste them. There are change bars to deal with, the side boxes noting the Mantis numbers, font fixes (e.g., keywords needs to be bold), red strikeouts disappear in Draft 6, and blue additions in Draft 5 become black in Draft 6. Shalom ________________________________ From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:52 AM To: Alsop, Thomas R; sv-bc Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of clause 12.5.3 Tom, I have NOT yet looked at the new proposal, but I think it would be enough to write in the Note to Editor that the proposal is relative to Draft 5. Shalom ________________________________ From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Alsop, Thomas R Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:53 AM To: sv-bc Subject: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of clause 12.5.3 Stu, I have taken the previous version of this proposal and now reworked it on top of Draft5. I have uploaded it to EDA.org. Here is my note to the editor now: (Note to Editor: The sections below contain the changes from Mantis items 1041, 1294, 2131, and 1345 are all merged into this version of 2008. All these changes were done on top of Draft5. In essence clause 12.4.2 and 12.5.3 can be cut and pasted into Draft6. Clauses 12.4.2.1, 12.4.2.2, 12.5.3.1, and 12.5.3.2 are new to Draft6"). I sifted through this one sentence at a time. I noticed a couple of very subtle changes that I had to make in 12.5.3 on top of what I already had in my proposal WRT to what I saw in Draft5. Enough that I would ask the champions to review only this clause. All the other clauses are okay. In particular this sentence was added in the 4th paragraph of 12.5.3 "If the case is qualified as unique0, the simulator implementation shall not issue a violation report if no case item case_item matches" I tried to be careful to keep the strikethroughs that you had too. Thanks, -Tom -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 08:16:58 PDT