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