at the last meeting we had a discussion about the sentence at the end of the first paragraph of Section 5.2.4.5, document p. 32, PDF p. 40, that says "Every cclock edge must occur on a uclock edge".  I believe this can be relaxed a little bit to allow the implementation freedom to place don't care edges:

  Every rising edge of a posedge active don't care cclock must occur
  on a rising edge of uclock. Every falling edge of a negedge active
  don't care cclock must occur on a rising edge of uclock.  All edges
  of a cclock that is neither posedge active don't care nor negedge
  active don't care must occur on a uclock posedge.

This cumbersome language can be simplified to:

  Every cclock edge the user cares about must occur on a rising
  edge of uclock.

This assumes it is clear what `caring' about cclock edges mean.  The preceding section (5.2.4.3) uses such language so presumably it is OK?
============================================================

The following wording was added to section 5.2.4.5

	Every cclock  edge must occur on a uclock edge.

The change in the document was approved, but was thought to not be ideal. The issues will remain open and deferred until the next revision of the spec.