RE: [sv-cc] Definition of ref obj: 455 and 489

The description in 489 in more nearly complete than the
one in 455, although I suspect we need to make the one
in 489 even better.  Thus even though 489 isn't complete,
it's probably the one to put our energies into.

Regards,
Jim V.

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Engineering Director                   (FAX) 978-262-6636 
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
270 Billerica Rd 
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 
"We all work with partial information." 
---------------------------------------------------------- 
  
 

] -----Original Message-----
] From: Warmke, Doug [mailto:doug_warmke@mentor.com] 
] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:02 PM
] To: Jim Vellenga; sv-cc@eda.org
] Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Definition of ref obj: 455 and 489
] 
] Jim,
] 
] That would be OK with me.
] The proposal for 489 is more comprehensive than 455's.
] Are you satisfied that the language in 489's proposal
] addresses the issue expressed in 455?
] 
] Regards,
] Doug
] 
] > -----Original Message-----
] > From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On 
] > Behalf Of Jim Vellenga
] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:02 AM
] > To: sv-cc@eda.org
] > Subject: [sv-cc] Definition of ref obj: 455 and 489
] > 
] > Should we declare 455 a duplicate of 489?
] > 
] > Regards,
] > Jim Vellenga
] > 
] > --------------------------------------------------------- 
] > James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
] > Engineering Director                   (FAX) 978-262-6636 
] > Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
] > 270 Billerica Rd 
] > Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 
] > "We all work with partial information." 
] > ---------------------------------------------------------- 
] >   
] > 
] > 
] 
]