Accordance with” No. Style issue. “In or After”, “At or Before” 3 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 “At – the specified time” March]: Agreed with Editors. The are “Parameters” “none” Shouldn’t the definition be something like: of when the associated instruction “Indication is to be performed relative to the specified time”, and the parameters be something like: “Choice: or “At”; Accordance with”; or “In or After”; or “At or Before”” “At The same comment applies to many of the variables Table A5-3 17 FR Comment: CROSS (position ATW) AT OR [Editors 21 March]: Disagreed. Open – UM56 LESS THAN (speed) Style is consistent with other CROSS. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – Suggested Change: CROSS (position ATW) March]: OPLINK disagrees with the AT(speed) OR LESS to be consistent with Editors and recommends this should be 108/109 consistent with the speed instructions. Table A5-3 18 FR Comment: (position ATW) AT OR [Editors 21 Disagreed. Style Open – UM57 GREATER THAN (speed) is consistent with other CROSS.
“In Accordance with” “At or After”, “At or Before” the specified time” The “Parameters” are “none” Shouldn’t the definition be something like: “Indication of when the associated instruction is to be performed relative to the specified time”, and the parameters be something like: “Choice: “At”; or “In Accordance with”; or “At or After”; or “At or Before”” The same comment applies to many of the variables No. Style issue. 3 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agreed with Editors. Table A5-3 UM56 17 FR Comment: CROSS (position ATW) AT OR LESS THAN (speed) Suggested Change: CROSS (position ATW) AT(speed) OR LESS to be consistent with 108/109 [Editors – 21 March]: Disagreed. Style is consistent with other CROSS. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: OPLINK disagrees with the Editors and recommends this should be consistent with the speed instructions. Open Table A5-3 UM57 18 FR Comment: (position ATW) AT OR GREATER THAN (speed) [Editors – 21 Disagreed. Style is consistent with other CROSS. Open
OPLINKPWGWHL-4-APR.docx