Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!shadooby!mailrus!ncar!asuvax!mcdphx!udc!chant!aglew From: aglew@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Andy-Krazy-Glew) Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee Subject: Re: Information about P896.2 Message-ID: Date: 28 Oct 89 00:08:57 GMT References: <407@ucl-cs.UUCP> <94213@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> Sender: aglew@urbana.mcd.mot.com Organization: Work: Motorola MCD, Urbana Design Center; School: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Lines: 32 In-reply-to: camp@m2.csc.ti.com's message of 12 Oct 89 22:20:32 GMT >There is no IEEE 896.2 at this point. There is only the IEEE/CS >P896.2 Working Group's draft which has not undergone Sponsor Ballot. >The 896 project has been restructured so that (after the revision is >balloted and approved next year) 896.1 will be the logical >specification of the bus and 896.2 will be the physical specification. > >Sometime early next year, the unapproved P896.1 and P896.2 drafts will >be made available at reproduction cost through the Computer Society >for 6-months or so to gather public comment before the official >Sponsor Ballot. I have read draft versions of FUTUREBUS and FUTUREBUS+ proposals. These are marked THIS IS AN UNAPPROVED DOCUMENT. DO NOT SPECIFY OR CLAIM CONFORMANCE TO THIS DOCUMENT. Is it permissible to mention features of the proposed FUTUREBUS[+] standard in papers? In publications? If one is not able to join the TC [see note below]? By mention, I mean statements of the form "The proposed FUTUREBUS standard contains..." -- suitably footnoted as to the tentative nature of any such data. ---- Note: I wouldn't mind participating in the TC, just have no fund$ to be able to participate usefully. -- Andy "Krazy" Glew, Motorola MCD, aglew@urbana.mcd.mot.com 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. {uunet!,}uiucuxc!udc!aglew My opinions are my own; I indicate my company only so that the reader may account for any possible bias I may have towards our products.