I like Radek's proposed phrasing.
Curtis
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:35 PM, <radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would suggest the following phrases:
1. A BCI_Protocol may be private or approved by the IBIS Open Forum.
2. BCI_Protocol names beginning with the prefix “IBIS” are
reserved for protocols approved by the IBIS Open Forum.
Radek
*From:* ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@
freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Curtis Clark
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:27 PM
*To:* Bob Ross <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [ibis-macro] Re: Draft 7 BIRD147.2
Hi All,
Sorry to have to revisit this discussion, but I have some questions about
the new language. I believe Bob properly captured what was discussed in
the meeting, but I think it's still confusing.
We have one sentence:
"A BCI_Protocol may be private, published, or approved by the IBIS Open
Forum."
What is the difference between published and "approved by the IBIS Open
Forum."? If there is no difference, then should we remove published or
combine it with approved?
If there is a difference, and protocols can be published (basically just
made public?) by something other than the IBIS Open Forum, then I think the
following sentence needs to be revised.
"BCI_Protocol names beginning with “IBIS” are reserved for future
protocols adopted and published."
Protocol names beginning with "IBIS" would be for protocols approved by
the IBIS Open Forum, right? Not just "published"?
Perhaps the use of "approved" in one sentence and "adopted" in the other
is also part of the issue?
Thanks,
Curtis
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Bob Ross <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All
Changes in the BCI_Protocol User Notes and Example per my interpretation of
our discussion.
Bob
--
Bob Ross
Teraspeed Labs
http://www.teraspeedlabs.com
bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direct: 503-246-8048
Office: 971-279-5325
