[P1800] Re: Minutes of Encryption group meeting, 19-Jan-2005 (1600 UTC)

> 4.[a-c]) Change noted in agenda was agreed to be editorial.

Done.
[b] is not editorial, but I did it anyway.

> 4.d) Action assigned (018) to resolve comments.

I don't understand this. The agenda said,
"4 d) Conflicting statements about application of encryption
      transformations outside of the encryption envelope (begin/end
      region)

      + Add an "unless otherwise specified" qualifier on the assertion
        that "text outside the encryption envelope is not modified".

Action 018 is:

    018) Steven Dovich to update example to remove 4.d confict,
            committee to review pragma expressions text for possible
            additional cases.

I don't see the connection. 4.d has nothing to do with an example.
Anyway, in the meantime, I added the "unless otherwise specified".

> 4.e) Resolve by removing "that has not already been closed"
> from para 3 of 28.0

Done.

> 4.f) Tools must be able to "ignore" encryption directives
> if not performing encryption. Encryption support within a
> tool is not a conformance requirement. Decryption support
> within a tool is a conformance requirement if the specified
> encryption algorithm is one of the mandatory set.

I don't think this is stated anywhere.
If it is stated, I don't think it is clear and prominent.
In an IEEE standard, any statement using "shall" is mandatory.
Any statement using "should" or "may" is optional.
All text is normative unless otherwise stated.
For example, the very first sentence of Clause 28 is:
"Protected envelopes specify a region of text which shall be transformed prior
to analysis by the source language processor. "
This states a mandatory requirement.

> 4.g) Change noted in agenda was agreed to be editorial.

Done.

> 4.h) Defer to future revision unless required editorially.

I don't understand.
The item was,
" h) Do we need line-wrapping text to ease formatting of the example
      and for user convenience.

      + appropriate text can be copied from `define if needed"

What is the resolution talking about ?

> 4.[i-j]) Change noted in agenda was agreed to be editorial.

4.i was,
" i) example is missing required "feature" argument

      + Steven to update example for Shalom"

I am still waiting for this. I need both clear text and encrypted text versions.

4.j is Done.

Thanks,
Shalom

--
Shalom Bresticker                        Shalom.Bresticker @freescale.com
Design & Verification Methodology                    Tel: +972 9  9522268
Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd.                 Fax: +972 9  9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL                     Cell: +972 50 5441478
[ ]Freescale Internal Use Only      [ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary