> From: Piotr Galka > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 05:15 > > The fourth side: We (I hope I will not be alone) think > point 1 is an error - it should call for "No... (unique > identification of document):"
I will propose yet another position. This position appears to me to logically suit the intent of the RoHS Dir. For a product with a given model designation, there may be multiple product revisions that don't affect the overarching model designation. I've worked at companies that had three levels of product identification (others may have more), each of which was marked on the product for traceability purposes that aided in customer support and failure analyses. Level 1: A model designation that is generally unvarying, but may have a revision code that changes only for large changes in functionality that marketing wants to make customers aware of. Level 2: A part number for the product that is used coincident with the model designation that contains a suffix that is allowed to change more frequently than the model designation. Level 3: A lower level part no. that changes frequently (even with every minor ECO or MCO addressing minor cosmetic issues as well as with more substantive changes) and may or may not change a suffix only. To address the RoHS Dir. for a product following the above (or a similar scenario), each level of product identification that can be or is RoHS compliance affecting must be identified in the DoC. This might include only the first two levels in the above example. As the revision levels roll up, a new DoC should be issued that covers the relevant product identifier levels. It is completely illogical that every S/N should be identified. For products that have high production rates, this is ridiculously onerous. Not that politicians are immune to being illogical or ridiculous, either by design or through ignorance or negligence. ☺ Regards, Peter Tarver This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
