Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)]

In article <3g17bj$m13@michp1.redstone.army.mil>,
Doc Elliott <helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil> wrote:
>In article <3g0i9d$6hj@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com>, 
>l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com says...
>
>>Beware! There is not an _official_ replacement for any of these 
>>standards, yet!  MIL-STD-SDD was _intended_ to replace these, but was 
>>sidetracked by the Perry memo. There is now an effort to make 
>>MIL-STD-SDD a commercial standard, at which time it _may_ replace the 
>>current standards.
>>
>The following was copied off the front of the document referenced.  Have 
>we been had by a hoax?  Does anyone have a definitive answer?
>

It should be clear that comp.lang.ada is _not_ the place to get a
definitive answer.  That being said, it shoudl also be noted that
Mil-Std-498 was indeed designed to replace several other documents,
including 2167A.  Further, the Perry memo does _not_ blanket Mil
standards, it merely requires using commercial standards where
possible.  Since there is no existing commercial documentation
standard, use Mil-std-498.  It became "official", to my knowledge,
sometime last OCtober.  Then again, I'm not an "official" channel :-)


-- 
       Frustrated with C/C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)