resolving the #105, #107 leftovers

Here are two leftovers from today's telecon [1].  We shouldn't need to deal 
with these again (except of course the resolution of #105 will occur during 
the "major-reorg issue group").

If you don't like any of this, bring it up Monday (note that [1] has been 
out for a few days now).  Else it rules.

>These two proposals> #105:  Part of the comment is, "nor is it entirely 
>clear that these
> > separate sections do not contradict one another."  This is an unprocessable
> > comment (how do we prove "no contradiction", in the lack of any asserted
> > contradictions?).  Maybe it will go away if we do some consolidating of 
> GLs.
>Yeah, unclear...

Should we write to JM and invite him to point out specific 
contradictions?  Or resolve issue with reply that "we don't find any 
specific contradictions" (and maybe add something about the outcome of our 
consolidation considerations).

Proposal:  We find no specific contradictions now.  Will deal with all of 
#105 under the major-reorg issue group, 54, 74, 75.2, 75.3, 75.7, 75.8, 
102, 104, 105.  Presumably, we will not tolerate any known contradictions 
then.  [No change to issue "Status" now -- link telecon minutes and this 

> > #107:  A[A[A]] priroities versus OpsGL table 1 -- we can make this go away
> > by agreeing that we will fix it in OpsGL, which definitely does set up a
> > parallel and in some places contradictory requirement.
>Yes... This table has caused way too much damage, we need to get rid of

Proposal:  The parallel and contradictory conformance requirements 
introduced by OpsGL table 1 will be eliminated, and the 3-level A, AA, AAA 
conformance designations will rule.  This will be dealt with in the 
resolution of OpsGL issues 3, 60.2, 72, 83, 107.  [Issue #107 is Closed as 
a SpecGL issue.]



Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 13:25:13 UTC