Response to Ballot comments from Interconnectix

Text item: Text_1

To IBIS Members,

Here are two comments from Bob Ross of Interconnectix on the EIA-656 draft.
Bob, of course, is our Secretary. I have read his comments, which are minor
and I approve them as stated. I have drafted a formal response in keeping
with the protocol established earlier. It is attached. As before, you are
welcome to consider the comments and you may prefer a different response.
Please inform Bob and myself directly or reply through the reflector if you
see any issues with the response. We particularly want input from
interested Voting Members and people who were closely involved in the
writing of IBIS Version 2.1. Based on comments and possible revisions, we
plan to discuss and vote on this document at the August 11 Open Forum
meeting.

Will Hobbs
Intel Corp.

===========================================================================

Bob Ross
Interconnectix, Inc.
10220 S.W. Nimbus Ave., K4
Portland, Oregon 97223

Dear Mr. Ross:

On behalf of the EDA IBIS Subcommittee, thank you very much for your review
and comments. Our Committee response based on a review and vote of approval
at the IBIS OPEN FORUM meeting of August 11, 1995 is given as the attachment
"EIA IBIS COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO INTERCONNECTIX, INC. COMMENTS TO STANDARDS
PROPOSAL NO. 3527.

Sincerely,

Will Hobbs
Chairman, EIA IBIS Open Forum

EIA IBIS COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO INTERCONNECTIX, INC.
COMMENTS TO STANDARDS PROPOSAL NO. 3527

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interconectix, Inc: Comment 1
Type of Comment: Editorial
Reference: Page 20, line 12
Suggested Change: Change "Sub-param" to "sub-parameters"
Reason: Consistency

Response: This change will be made as requested.

Interconnectix, Inc: Comment 2
Type of Comment: Editorial
Reference: Page 24, line 16
Suggested Change: Change "(General Syntax Rule #10)" to "(General
                        Syntax Rule #11)".
Reason: By adding rule "10)" according to BIRD 26 on page 37,
                        as rule "10)" on page 4, the subsequent rules were
                        renumbered. The old reference was not updated on
                        page 24.

Response: This change will be made as requested.
Received on Wed Aug 9 17:13:17 1995