Closed AnnaWall01 closed 6 months ago
Hi @AnnaWall01,
We have no problem with removing Annex F. You have our consent.
Also support removing annex F.
Support for removal of Annex F. @AnnaWall01, what about Annex E? What is the point of having it without something concrete being worked on?
Decision at PT15 to remove Annex F from PS. @hasel001 if you can make the practical work of removing it from the PS?
I will happily take on that action.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 15:43 Anna Wall @.***> wrote:
Decision at PT15 to remove Annex F from PS. @hasel001 https://github.com/hasel001 if you can make the practical work of removing it from the PS?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/iho-ohi/S-102-Product-Specification/issues/61#issuecomment-1815882469, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHSN2KRCHX6GRII4SQEIPQDYE4ISXAVCNFSM6AAAAAA5SC4DKGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMJVHA4DENBWHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
I finally resolved this issue by making the appropriate changes this morning.
Sweden suggest removal of Annex F from the S-102 PS. There is no need for this information in S-102.
We suggest either to
It has also been noted that some of the information in the annex is incorrect. Please see comments in the attached PDF, page no 63 to 65.
S-102 Ed.2.2_2023-04_commented (002).pdf