Subject: Re: IBIS PENDING VERSION 3.0 DOCUMENTS

From: Andy Ingraham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 97 09:48:42 EDT

May I suggest clearly identifying any IBIS spec work-in-progress
documents as being preliminary, within the document itself?

I have maybe a dozen copies of the version 2.1 spec in my mailbox,
including one that is identified as the "official, ratified IBIS 2.1
specification."  They all differ from the three versions of
"version 2.1" on vhdl.org (which ought to have been given different
minor revision numbers ... but that's yet another matter).

Please, put something RIGHT WITHIN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, identifying it
as an unapproved version, until it has actually been approved.

I suggest adding the word "UNAPPROVED" to the second line, the one
that identifies the spec version.

Regards,
Andy Ingraham

---

From: [email-masked] ( Bob Ross)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT)

Andy:

This is my mistake.  The ver3_0.ibs file has been updated in the
wip directory that the document is UNOFFICIAL PENDING.

Bob Ross
Interconnectix

> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 97 09:48:42 EDT
> From: Andy Ingraham <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Apparently-To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: IBIS PENDING VERSION 3.0 DOCUMENTS
> Status: RO