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

Hi Dave,

I definitely agree with your concern, but the funny thing with this
specific bug that it was inserted as a result of relatively local change
in assertions, and was unfortunately overlooked - a text fragment that
became irrelevant was not deleted from the LRM.

Dmitry 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:14 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; sv-ec@server.eda.org; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: 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
> >
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.