[sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] RE: Mantis 2478 Clock flow subclause is not consistent with multiclocked property definition

Hi Dmitry,

I hope you now have some appreciation for the frustration that some
people on the other committees and I have been going through by not
being able to address any modifications to the LRM for the last few
months; just because one committee was allowed to continue on.

I hope people will remember, if they are around for the next PAR, that
the balloted LRM is just a snapshot of work in progress. There was no
need to hold up balloting the LRM for a whole year - because there will
always be another revision of the LRM to work on.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:49 AM
> To: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com
> Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] RE: Mantis 2478 Clock flow subclause is not
consistent
> with multiclocked property definition
> 
> Hi Neil,
> 
> This is sad, but "dura lex sed lex".
> 
> Dmitry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:25 PM
> To: Korchemny, Dmitry
> Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: Re: Mantis 2478 Clock flow subclause is not consistent with
> multiclocked property definition
> 
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> The proposal for Mantis item 2478 was discussed in the Working Group
> meeting last Thursday.
> 
> I described the situation in the meeting and then made a motion to
> approve
> the proposal. No one was willing to second the motion. As a result,
this
> proposal will not be part of the ballot draft (which will be draft 8).
> 
> There is a reluctance to allow any more changes to the LRM at this
point
> in
> time. Only purely Editorial changes are being allowed by the Working
> Group.
> 
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/27/08 02:09, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> >
> >
> > What should be the next steps with 2478? This item was resolved by
> > SV-AC, but since it has not been discussed by the WG, it hasn't been
> > implemented in Draft7a. I think this issue is a [show stopper] for
the LRM
> release.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dmitry
> >
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.