[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Merle's Re: COTS scope



Merle,
First of all, what we discussed today is reducing the scope of the standard; however, you are reacting as though we are seeking to do the opposite.

My best guess as to what you have an issue with are the resolutions that the COTS STG came up with earlier this year, most of which were edited into the document months ago (and the remaining few of which a TG leader refused to edit in, as of the last time I checked).

> The question that I intended to ask during the teleconference of Nov.
> 30... Under this proposed scope, how will warranty work on the equipment
> be addressed?

If a part needs replacing, it must be replaced with the same model/part number.

> If each time a defective driver or other COTS component
> is identified and a warranty recall is issued (example: recent recall by
> Dell for a defective driver for their RAID configuration used on central
> tabulation machines), how will this impact requalification of a system?

As with other COTS concerns, the answer is "the same as on other mission critical systems"; it would require regression testing.  However, I have never heard of a recall for a defective driver in a mission critical system.  The standard of testing seems to preclude this from happening.  

> The owners of the systems (jurisdictions) will want to take advantage of
> warranty work while still covered by the warranty.   If the warranty
> work requires the entire system to be requalified...that could be
> impractical, given the time and expense involved, as well as the
> potential quantity of warranty claims over the life of the unit.

If the warranty work requires replacing a part with a like part, then no expense is incurred.

If the warranty work requires partial re-design, it would indeed be costly; for this reason, any vendor that succeeds in business will ensure that COTS parts are tested to the same standards as parts that are crafted for the specific product.

Vince