Opposition to DR 09-107

Rex Jaeschke rex at RexJaeschke.com
Sun May 24 12:33:35 CEST 2009

I disagree. It seems to me that the resolution to DR 09-0107 should stand as
is. Here's my thinking.

1. If I understand correctly, regardless of the resolution of DR 09-0159,
the proposed changes in the resolution of DR 09-0107 are correct; true and
false are always acceptable values. If that is the case, there is no risk in
adopting those changes, even if (later on) DR 09-0159 makes them

2. Given that we have a solution to DR 09-0107, and we might not resolve DR
09-0159 to go in the same COR set, I see no reason to delay publishing the
solution to DR 09-0107.

3. From a personal viewpoint, it took a non-trivial effort to research and
write up the solution to DR 09-0107, so I'd rather not just throw it away if
it helps us close out one more DR.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:42 AM
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Opposition to DR 09-107
> DR 09-107 (examples containing "on" or "off" are incorrect) is "LAST
> CALL", but I disagree.  If we accept the change proposed by DR 09-0159,
> "on" and "off" will become correct.  This DR should go back to
> Cheers,
> Makoto

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list