[P1800] Items for the P1800 conference call June 26, 2008

Hi, all,

Here are the files from today's 1800 Conference call.

Karen


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



P1800 Working Group,

Below are the results of the most recent Champion's conference calls.

   June  05, 2008  conference call (6 of the 8 Champions were on-line)

We would like to get approval for those Mantis items that have been approved
by both the Technical Committees and the Champions. A summary of the Mantis
items is shown below.

Neil


List of Mantis items unanimously approved by both the TCs and the Champions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2 mantis items)


2.1 2399  SV-BC Corrections to 0001619
        - fixed 
	- On June 2, 2008 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
	- For 1619, a down-level version of the proposal was 
          accidentally approved; 2399 contains what was missing from 1619


2.2 2374  SV-BC 7.4.1: Allow packed arrays of enum
	- fixed
	- On June 2, 2008, the SV-BC unanimously approved 
	  2374_D5_packed_enum_arrays_v3.htm as the resolution to this issue.

 
List of Mantis items unanimously approved by the Champions but not the TC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1 mantis items)


2.4 2008  SV-BC Glitch problem in unique/priority if/case
        - fixed
	- Approved by the Champions in April 10 conference call (1 opposed)
	- Editor requested a better note. 
	- When updating the proposal another set of changes were made
	- On May 12, 2008 the SV-BC approved the latest proposal draft 
	  (2008_D5_deglitch_if_case.V3.htm). The vote was not unanimous:

	     Opposed: Stu (ambiguous severity level will lead to implementation
		      differences that will be problematic for users)
	     Abstain: Heath (agrees with Stu but no enough to oppose)

        - Clarification from Shalom. 06/04/08

	  The original proposal was based on Draft 4 and was the last in a 
	  series of Manti on the same sections of the LRM, each building on 
	  the changes done by the preceding ones.

	  The other Manti were entered into Draft 5, but not 2008. As a result, 
	  the 2008 proposal was rewritten using Draft 5 as a clean base 
	  document. A few additional editorial corrections were noticed and 
	  entered, but no technical changes from the previous proposal 
	  were made.

    Brad   - Stu wants to see an error
    Shalom - The proposal doesn't specify if it is a warning or an error. 
	   - Some committee members preferred a warning, others prefer an error
	   - The proposal was purposely left vague on this point. 
	   - Trying to nail it down precisely could have involved a fair amount
	     of complications. There would be questions about fatal versus 
	     non-fatal error versus warning. Stu wanted a non-fatal error.