| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I
don't see how having PICS causes any decision on whether this should be a
subclause, a subannex, a stand alone clause, or a standalone annex. Whether it
is sub to something else or a standalone entity really depends upon how
substantial it is and how dependent or independent it is.
If it
is decided to be sub to something, the only two logical somethings are Clause 7
and Annex F, with Clause 7 being the more sensible. (Perhaps this becomes an
extension to, or a precursor to, ringlet selection.) If it becomes a new stand
alone something, it really should be a clause, not an annex, so it would become
Clause 14.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Michael Allen Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:01 AM To: STDS-802-17@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [RPRWG] P802.17 Interim Session (Oct 4-6) While
this will be an OPTIONAL feature to fully support, I am guessing that if you
implement it there will be PICS entries for conformance that will be MANDATORY
for the feature. If there are PICS, it would seem like you would have to have a
sub-clause.
Michael
|