Re: Fw: P1666 LRM feedback

Kaz,

Replies below.

Thanks,

John A

STARC joined in the draft LRM review meeting by JEITA (STARC is
participating in JEITA) and we mutally agreed the results.
So the feedback is basically same but also we have followings.

1. TLM-2.0-compliant implementation, TLM-2.0
   base-protocol-compliant and TLM-2.0 custom-protocol-compliant
   descreption :

   Precise reference list of the rules' identifier (section number
   with rule's header symbol, eg. 16.2.3 a) to q), 16.2.4 a) to
   ...) for each compliance would be helpful for the
   reader/implementor. These references would not be necessarily
   in the LRM body part.

   For example, the difference between 10.1 b) and c) might not
   be so clear for the beginner.
 
[JA] The existing references (16.2, 15.2.1, 15.2.2) point to clauses that
come as close as is possible to explicitly listing where to find the
rules. I will re-word the to elaborate the cross-references.

2. Some state-chart like figure for simulation states will help
   reader's understanding. I attache an example (but I'm not
   confident that it is correct).
 
[JA] Nice slide! We will need to review for correctness, but I would like
to include something like this in the LRM.

3. State-chart like figure for process states will help, too.
   Sorry, no example attached for this.
 
[JA] Good idea.

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