FW: [sv-ec] the review of draft 2 of standard

FYI.

________________________________

From: Maidment, Matthew R [mailto:matthew.r.maidment@intel.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:05 AM
To: Mehdi Mohtashemi; Neil.Korpusik@Sun.com
Subject: RE: [sv-ec]Meeting Monday March 19, 2007, 11:00am-1:00pm


Mehdi & Neil.
 
Per the request of the SV-BC I'm forwarding this to you.
 
The SV-BC just did some planning for reviewing draft 2 of the standard.
Here are the committee ownerships we have initially identified:
 
  Sections Review
  Clauses:
1(BC),2(BC),3(BC),4(EC),5(BC),6(BC),7(EC/BC),8(EC),9(BC/EC),10(BC),
  11(BC),12(BC),13(BC),14-15(EC),16(AC),17-18(EC),19(All),20,21,22(All),
  23(EC),24(BC/EC),25(BC),26-33(BC),34-37(CC),38(CC-AC),39(EC),40(CC)
 
  Annex: A(All), B(All), C(BC/CC), D(BC), E(BC), F(AC), G(EC),
H(EC),I(CC),J(CC)
  K(CC), L(CC), M(CC), N(BC/EC), O(BC), P(All), Q(All), R(All)

Other committees may choose to review clauses that are marked as only
BC.
The BC will not be reviewing clauses that are not marked as relevant
to the BC.
 
I'm also adding the assignments we have agreed to so far in case EC
members
find it useful.  My apologies about formatting.  These are my in-flight
notes, dressed up very little.
 
Clauses   
[Priority<Clause>: Comments (# of reviewers, <names>)]
 
H 1: introductory (1)
H 2: Short (1)
H 3: Some text is normative.  Watch for excessive duplication in later
     clauses.  3.8 would benefit from implementor review. (2 + All,
Gord)
H 4: BC reps will review as part of EC 
H 5  High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (2, Dave)
H 6: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review, especially this one. (2,
Dave)
H 7: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (2, Mark, Dave)
H 9: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (2, Cliff, Gord)
H10: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (2, Cliff)
H11: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (2, Steven)
H12: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (2, Cliff)
H13: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (2, Dave)
M19: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. (Send 19.4 & 19.17 into
20?) (1)
M20: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. (1)
M21: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (1; pay attention to
`define)
 
H22: High merge effort.  Needs detailed review. (2, Gord)
 

L24: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. (1, Francoise)
L25: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. (1, Francoise)
L26: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. Grammar needs to be
updated. (1)
L27: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. Grammar needs to be
updated. (1)
     Watch Array of instance references.  Needs to be reconciled with
     Clause 22.
L28: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. Grammar needs to be
updated.(1)
L29: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. Grammar needs to be
updated.(1)
L30: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete. Grammar needs to be
updated.(1)
L31: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete.(1)
L32: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete.(1)
L33: Minor merge effort.  Merge not complete.(1)
 
Annex
[Priority <Annex Letter>(# of reviewers, <name>)]
L A(1)
L B(1, Cliff)
L C(1, Cliff)
L D(1)
L E(1)
L N(1)
L O(1)
L P(1)
L Q(1)
L R(1)
 
 Break up issues: easy items in the same clause: one Mantis.  Each more 
 significant issues gets its own Mantis item. Make sure to refer to
draft 2.   
 

--
Matt Maidment
mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
  


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