Re: Ravenscar Profile and SIL

["ian.kerr2" <ian.kerr2@ntlworld.com>]

Martin,
    are you contracted to DEF STAN [UK] 00-55 and 00-56 version 1 (easy) or
version 2 ( not easy)?
We are doing projects with both and the consequences are quite different.

In my view Ravenscar only reduces the risk of rogue tasks. Take as an
example 00-55 version 2, SIL 4; then one must provide an audit trail of the
software production process. As you are using a COTS OS I should point out
our experiences with Wind Rivers Systems. You will hit a dead end or go down
the NON COTS path, and even then I am not sure you will succeed. We had to
switch to another OS. I suggest you look at the alternatives; which do exist
if you were to use Ada95 and PowerPCs.

If you want the full background of my investigations, I suggest you
privately e-mail me on ian.kerr@baesystems.com as you are covered by some
NDAs.

That applies to anyone else who would be interested, minus details of OS
divulged by WRS and Enea OSE. Candidate 3 did not require an NDA. You can
come to your own conclusions.

Ian

Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@gecm.com> wrote in message
news:3a6ec2e0$1@pull.gecm.com...
> I'm probably asking too simple a question but here goes anyway...
>
> Is the Ravenscar Profile 'SIL3' compliant?
>
>
>