From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Jun 22 18:26:07 2004 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) id i5MGQ7B9048453 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:26:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i5MGOVE7048419 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:26:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from rich_maine@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:48:43 -0700 Received: from [130.134.31.78] (viruswall.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.64.54]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:54:49 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:54:43 -0700 From: Richard Maine To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3141) New terminology when Modules TR 19767isintegrated Message-Id: <2C28A81A4C2862234FAA6C33@397D00B13C40E37711D9CBEA> In-Reply-To: <200406221531.i5MFVHMG047288@dkuug.dk> References: <200406212031.i5LKV6He025654@math.jpl.nasa.gov> <200406221531.i5MFVHMG047288@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk --On Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:05 AM -0400 Dan Nagle wrote: > I prefer the "Pasadena Two-Step" approach. > > First, the TR is incorporated as-is into the IS. > Then, a separate paper makes any CCR improvements > which may seem desirable. Me too. Also, I do agree with Van that it is ok to make wording revisions after the TR is incorporated. It is just the technical content of the TR that we "promise" not to change unless experience shows it has problems. Details of how we do the internal drafts are quite unspecified. Even if we put together a F2003+TR internal document, it is just an internal document and has no official standing as a standard, so there are no particular requirements about that (but I do agree that it would improve tracability to first do an internal draft based on the TR as is). I haven't studied the particular wording changes proposed, so I don't have a position either way at the moment, but I agree that there is no bar in principle. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain