Folks, I agree with Ajay, that no rewording is needed. If you search the LRM for "otherwise", you will find that the usage "if <condition-1>, then <specification-1>; otherwise <specification-2>" is pervasive. It means <condition-1> => <specification-1> not <condition-2> => <specification-2> I think that in this case, we need only issue an explanation, not an interpretation. (The terms "explanation" and "interpretation" are defined in clause 5.9 of the IEEE Standards Board Ops Manual, see http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect5.html#5.9.) BTW, our resolutions should refer to the current revision of the standard, 1076-2002. Where relevant for explanatory purposes, we can refer to prevision revisions. So, in the case of this issue, we should explain the specification in 1076-2002 and indicate that it was the same in 1076-1993. </nit-picking> Cheers, PA -- Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au PO Box 640 Ph: +61 8 8339 7532 Stirling, SA 5152 Fax: +61 8 8339 2616 Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-isac@eda.org [mailto:owner-isac@eda.org] On > Behalf Of Ajayharsh Varikat > Sent: Friday, 11 March 2005 00:18 > To: isac@eda.org > Subject: IR 2064 > > > > The intent in the LRM looks obvious to me, and I agree with > the analysis. Personally, I am not even convinced there is a need to > change the wording. > > -ajay > > > ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > >From owner-isac@eda.org Wed Mar 9 02:17 IST 2005 > Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:47:18 -0800 > To: isac@eda.org > Subject: Some ISAC issues. > Sender: owner-isac@eda.org > > Larry has analyzed IR2064. You can read his analysis on the website. > > I sent out an email asking for a vote on IRs 2042, 2048 and > 2051 So far, only Larry and Peter have responded. Please try > to vote on these. > > Chuck Swart > > > > ----- End Included Message ----- >Received on Sun Mar 13 15:23:59 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 13 2005 - 15:24:00 PST