I'm not sure it's a good idea to change an entity type to a class.  It is not backward compatible.  For the entries in here, it doesn't directly affect me, but this would cause some interoperability issues.  Although not the best design, I think a better approach is something like making 1.1.45.1.9.1 the Type 99 w/ Plow; .2 the Type 99 w/ATGM, and continue with .3 as 99a, .4 as 99a w/plow, etc.








Lance Marrou, Leidos, [log in to unmask]


12901 Science Drive, Orlando, Florida USA 32826, o: 407.243.3710








-----Original Message-----


From: SAC-SWG-ENUM [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Ronnfeldt


Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:07 PM


To: [log in to unmask]


Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: CR to Update Chinese Land Vehicles - Part 1





Found an error when running through the updater toolset, so here is an update:





Rev A - move Type 88 to start at sub-cat 12





Regards,





David Ronnfeldt





########################################################################





To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:


https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1





########################################################################





To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:


https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1