RE: [sv-ac] draft 7 cross review

Hi John,

I added your first comment to 1900 as a note. I suggest sending your
second comment to Stu with the exact wording. I think it can be
considered an editorial change (missing words).

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of John Havlicek
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 4:01 AM
To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] draft 7 cross review

Hi Folks:

I have completed by draft 7 cross review.  In addition to
the issues I sent before, I only found one more issue in 16.13.
No issue was found in 16.14.

J.H.


16.13.17
--------

. First paragraph, change

     Recursion provides a flexible framework for coding properties to
serve as
     ongoing assumptions, checkers, or coverage monitors.

  to

     Recursion provides a flexible framework for coding properties to
serve as
     ongoing assumptions, obligations, or coverage monitors.

  Rationale:  With the checker construct, the word "checker" should be
avoided in
  this context.
. RESTRICTION 1.  The last sentence should apply to the strong
operators, not just
  "not".  The first sentence talks about direct dependency, while the
last talks 
  about transitive dependency.

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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