I agree that the additional example requested in ballot comment 35 does not add any real value to the LRM. This was discussed in the EC conference call, and it was decided that adding the 1-line informative comment does no harm and removes the concern expressed by the balloter. You are correct that the syntax box reference is incorrect. It is correct on my notes; I have no clue how my fingers managed to turned "3" into "65" when I typed it in L. I will update the proposal with to show the correct reference number. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com (503) 692-0898 From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:35 PM To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; SV-EC@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Proposals for ballot comments 35, 46 & 170 Hi, I don't understand comment 35 nor the resolution. What is missing from example s1 that is added by s0? The proposal for Mantis 2696 refers to Syntax 13-65. That should be Syntax 13-3. Shalom _____ From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutherland Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:03 AM To: SV-EC@server.eda.org Subject: [sv-ec] Proposals for ballot comments 35, 46 & 170 I have added proposals to Mantis Item 2705 (ballot comment 35), Mantis 2706 (ballot comment 46) and 2696 (ballot comment 170). These are no-brainers, and should be ready for an e-mail vote. Stu --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.Received on Fri Apr 17 08:42:11 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 17 2009 - 08:42:47 PDT