[sv-bc] Editor comments on reviewing draft8-preliminary

<forwarding email from the Editor>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[sv-ac] Editor comments on reviewing draft8-preliminary
Date: 	Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:47:08 -0800
From: 	Stuart Sutherland <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>
Reply-To: 	stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
Organization: 	Sutherland HDL, Inc.
To: 	sv-ac@eda.org, sv-ec@eda.org, 'SV-CC' <sv-cc@eda.org>, sv-sc@eda.org



All,



The replacement of the word “ensure” in draft8-preliminary has resulted
in considerable e-mail traffic with alternate suggestions, and
alternates to those alternates.  I am quickly getting confused!  (It
doesn’t take much to confuse me).  Rather than my trying to sort out
which alternate suggestions to use, I request that each committee chair
collect the suggestions, sort them out, and send me a SINGLE SUMMARY
message with ALL requested changes under that committee’s umbrella.
Please send me this list ONE TIME, on, or just before, the December 19,
2008 deadline that Neil set for reviewing draft8-preliminary.



Also, please remember that the Working Group only approved the
committees making corrections to text that was changed between draft7a
and draft8-preliminary.  If any of the committees should happen to find
other errata that already existed in draft 7a, the errata should be
tracked, but CANNOT be corrected in the final draft 8.  It will be up to
those that ballot on the standard as to whether that additional errata
needs to be flagged as a ballot issue.



I would like to comment on a general question that came up on one of the
reflectors regarding draft 8; “Is it mandatory to replace the word
‘ensure’ with something else?”



The short answer is “Yes!”  This is a new rule the IEEE added this
year.  Shalom answered the question very well on the reflector where the
question was raised, stating “For IEEE, the term 'ensure' involves legal
responsibility, which has particular significance in safety-related issues.”



  In the IEEE’s review of one of our drafts, they specifically flagged
the word “guarantee” and asked that it be rephrased so as to avoid using
that word.  In the latest IEEE review, they flagged the word “ensure”,
and suggested that all usages of the word be replaced with “verify” or
some other wording that is not as legally binding as “ensure”.



Ironically, the word “guarantee” has crept back into the LRM after lots
of new Mantis items, but the IEEE only flagged its usage in one place in
draft 7a (which I corrected in draft 8-preliminary).  If the committee
chairs wish to do a search for “guarantee” in their respective LRM
clauses and suggest new wording to replace that word, I will make those
changes in the final draft 8.  It might prevent a future IEEE red flag
from being raised.



One precautionary note on any suggested rewording of “ensure” and
“guarantee” is that the IEEE also flagged the word “must”, stating that
it is a deprecated term in IEEE manuals.



Each committee should also review the committee lists in the frontmatter
of the LRM.  In particular, please make sure the affiliations are correct.



Finally, just as an FYI, there is one global change between draft7a and
draft8-preliminary which did not get marked with colored text or change
bars.  I resequenced the numbering of the footnotes in the Annex A so
that the footnotes are in the order of first appearance in the BNF.  All
references to footnotes in BNF excerpts that are in the main clauses of
the LRM are hyperlinks, and automatically updated to the new footnote
numbering.  This change should not require any review by the
committees—I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the change
in case some of you have memorized the old footnote numbering ;)





Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
+1-503-692-0898

www.sutherland-hdl.com




-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.

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


This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com