[cgl_discussion] Another potential errata: PRF.1.0

Fleischer, Julie N julie.n.fleischer at intel.com
Fri Jan 9 14:27:23 PST 2004

> Unless someone objects, I suggest we not do errata on 
> maturity.  The reasoning is that all of these projects will 
> transition maturity states, and then we will have a big mess 
> of errata on our hands to keep up with the changes.

Sounds good.  Especially since we hope that all projects increase in
maturity over time.  This one was unique in that maturity was believed
to be incorrect at publication time, but I still think your logic of not
doing errata on maturity is valid.  We can use CGL 3.0 to correct/update
these issues.

- Julie

**These views are not necessarily those of my employer.**

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list