Re: 2167A Questions

[att!att-out!cbnewsl!willett@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (david.c.willett)]

>From article <1993Jul21.200159.32712@source.asset.com>, by vand@source.asset.c
om (Laurence VanDolsen):

	{good advise on using 2167A deleted}


> There are many criticisms of 2167A that are specious.  In my opinion
> there is only one which is really true and important.  The 2167A
> document set is reasonably well designed to afford a customer an
> opportunity to review the design in progress and to 'participate' in the
> development of his/her system.  The documentation which results from an
> unimginative compliance with the Data Item Descriptions does NOT,
> however, provide very good support for the poor soul who will maintain
> the software after deployment.
> 
> Laurence L. Van Dolsen - Der fliegender Hollander
> My opinions are my own, but you are welcome to them.
> Paramax - (805) 987-9302 - vandolsen@cam.paramax.com
> 

Brother, will I second that observation!  Using the 2167A documentation set
for maintenance is terribly frustrating because you *know* that what you're
looking for is in there *somewhere* but where is it!

DOD-STD-2168 could use some help too.  It doesn't seem to consider the needs
of the maintainer either.  I suppose that since they've decided to rewrite
the standard(s), this observation is academic, but I've always maintained
that the problem could be fixed with the DIDs, leaving the standard(s) 
untouched.

-- 
Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies
If you want to know --- ASK!  -- Linda Ellerbee