From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 22 Jul 93 13:34:36 GMT
From: att!att-out!cbnewsl!willett@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (david.c.willett)
Subject: Re: 2167A Questions
Message-ID: <CAKJ1r.Ez6@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>>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