On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they > said that at some earlier date, the values of two switch instances > changed. Self-ratifying switch reports generally just directly say > what the values of the switches are, so I don't think they get tangled > up in the problem you consider in your judgement.
I was referring to the interpretation that only updates the historical record likely breaking self-ratification. But I agree, the R217 appeal probably isn't necessary (and was kind of wedged in there as an afterthought, anyway). -- Jason Cobb
