RE: [sv-ac] Re: 2005 (deferred assertions): can we split into two proposals?

OK, I have added Mantis 2209 to cover this issue.
Doug, Dmitry-- pls add this to our active list.  Meanwhile I'll work on
completing the non-event-control version of 2005.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of John Havlicek
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:35 PM
To: Seligman, Erik
Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com; Korchemny, Dmitry;
sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org; doug_warmke@mentor.com
Subject: [sv-ac] Re: 2005 (deferred assertions): can we split into two
proposals?

Hi Erik:

This is a matter of interpretation.

My understanding from the P1800 Working Group was that we were supposed
to have our Mantis items entered by 2007-11-12.

There was some confusion in the process, so a couple of items were
deleted and later added back in.

Stu also said that he thought that the deadline was 2007-11-15, and a
couple more have been added.

I don't object to splitting this Mantis item on the grounds that we are
not increasing the scope of the work, only changing the accounting.  

But I will feel more comfortable when our list stabilizes.

J.H.


> X-ExtLoop1: 1
> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,421,1188802800"; 
>    d="scan'208";a="205582577"
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:33:24 -0800
> X-MS-Has-Attach: 
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
> Thread-Topic: 2005 (deferred assertions): can we split into two
proposals?
> Thread-Index: Acgnt6TWeZ/kIPRuQRCd9AZeYbbYfQABjX+g
> From: "Seligman, Erik" <erik.seligman@intel.com>
> Cc: "Korchemny, Dmitry" <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>,
<sv-ac@eda-stds.org>,
>         "Warmke, Doug" <doug_warmke@mentor.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Nov 2007 19:33:25.0318 (UTC) 
> FILETIME=[63E37660:01C827BE]
> 
> =20
> Hi John-- is it too late to split 2005 into two proposals, and thus 
> add a new one to the active list?
> 
> I think we are in general agreement (even with the skeptics) on the 
> concept for deferred assertions, so I would like to prepare an 
> almost-final version of this proposal.
> 
> But there is still some controversy about exactly how to add optional 
> event controls, so I'm thinking it might be best to make a separate 
> proposal on adding event controls to deferred assertions, and create 
> the original proposal without this feature.
> 
> This will also have the beneficial side effect of getting the deferred

> assertions ready for use by sv-bc in the 2008 proposal (glitch-free 
> implied case assertions) more quickly, since I don't think that usage 
> requires the event controls.

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

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