Freezing the conformance class "Transitional", revisited

[Rex Jaeschke]

This issue has been raised at a number of meetings, each time in an ad hoc
manner. And until we decide on some guiding principles, I expect it will
continue to  come up. 

While I am in favor of giving this topic agenda time in Prague, at the end
of that discussion, we need to have an action item for some individual or
small group to write up a detailed paper addressing all aspects of the
issue, along with specific scenarios. Then once that has been circulated we
can discuss and refine it further. 

I certainly don't believe that we can/should try to resolve this issue
without doing such research and review.

Regards

Rex



> -----Original Message-----
> From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> MURATA Makoto
> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 9:09 PM
> To: SC34
> Subject: Freezing the conformance class "Transitional", revisited
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> We are going to consider this issue again in Prague.  (If nothing horrible
about
> nuclear power supplies happen, I can attend.)
> 
> UK proposed to use a dated reference from Part 4 to Part 1 so that CORs
and
> AMDs to Part 1 do not change Part 4 automatically.  The use of a date
> reference does not necessarily mean that T is completely frozen, since we
> can create CORs and AMDs to Part 4.
> 
> 
> Here are two specific questions I would like to ask.
> 
> Q1: Will there be new implementations of Part 4?
> 
> Q2: Are there any planned changes to Part 1 which we do not want to apply
> to T?
> 
> Cheers,
> Makoto <EB2M-MRT at asahi-net.or.jp>