Changes to L2/01-436

Clause 14.8

Change “concerns” to “comments.”

For L2 information: This Clause was introduced via Item 9 in Personal Contribution from Edwin Hart to SC2 and SC2/WG3 [L2/01-401 (2/3)]. Ed agrees to this change.

Annex F

Add instruction before current text: Change the designation of the current Annex F to Annex G.

Note that the recommended addition to the legend is shown in L2/01-437

Flowchart (L2/01-437R)

Changes mutually agreed to by Ed and Joan on 2001-11-02 have been incorporated. These are editorial, except for unification of rectangles 13.6 and 14.6.

Additions to US comments in L2/01-436

From Joan Aliprand; not discussed with Ed Hart

References are to the version dated 2001-10-25.

A. Text

Clause 13.5

Change “applies” to “apply”.

B. Flowchart (L2/01-437R)

1. Left column, 13.3 and 13.4 RA (RA-JAC) (diamonds)

Flowchart introduces “Test 1” and “Test 2” which are not explicitly defined in the standard. Eliminate the need to define these terms by changing “Pass Test 1?” to

to “Application conforms to Clause 13.3?” and “Pass Test 2?” to “Application conforms to Clause 13.4?”

2. Left column, 13.7 RA (RA-JAC) (rectangle)

Delete “and incorporate as Required into Registration”

Rationale: The RA uses the SC CCS comments as input to the next decision step “Approve Registration?” The RA cannot incorporate comments into the “final registration” (quoting from Clause 13.7) until there is a final registration (which results from a positive outcome of the next decision step).

Further comments: The wording should be “if Appropriate” rather than “as Required.” There is no requirement for the RA to incorporate comments from SC CCS review into the registration. Incorporation of comments is at the RA’s discretion. There is no need to show this optional action in the “Register CCS” box (left column, 13.9 RA).

3. Right column, 14.1 RA (rectangle)

It is unclear from the wording of Clause 14.1 whether the RA-JAC reviews every application for registration or only those which (a) have a mapping and (b) those without a mapping where the RA requests an opinion. This confusion must be clarified by modification of the text, with modification of the flowchart if necessary.

4. Right column, 3^rd box (diamond)

Change “Concerns with Mapping?” to “Recommends Mapping Changes?”

Rationale: Better expresses action of RA-JAC.

5. Right column, 14.7 RA (RA-JAC) SA (rectangle)

Enclose “SA” in parentheses.

Rationale: Currently, the flowchart shows that the RA shall consult the SA when resolving comments on the mapping. Such consultation should be at the discretion of the RA. For example, if a comment suggested a change to the layout of a mapping table, the RA should not be obligated to discuss this with the SA.

6. Right column, 14,8 RA (rectangle)

Delete arrow from this box to connecting circle.

Rationale: As currently drawn, the mapping which the RA has been removed from the application is published in the 2375 Register. This is an error. The RA takes no further action on a mapping that has been removed from an application because the SA refuses to yield to mapping changes recommended by the RA-JAC, or by SC CCS reviewers and endorsed by the RA and the RA-JAC.

7. Notation

Add “parentheses indicate optionality.”