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

Hi John,

The Working Group discussed the lists of Mantis items in the
meeting this morning. I pointed out that you had a few additional
items that needed to be added to the svac list.

You have until the end of today to get your final list to me. As I
understand it, Tom Thatcher had a couple of Mantis items to add to
the svac list and that this morning Dmitry was trying to add a couple
of others as well. You will need to fold all of these additions into
your schedule, which currently appears to be quite full.


Neil




John Havlicek wrote On 11/15/07 12:35 PM,:
> 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.
> 
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Korpusik                                     Tel: 408-276-6385
Frontend Technologies (FTAP)                      Fax: 408-276-5092
Sun Microsystems                       email: neil.korpusik@sun.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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