I agree with Rene, leave as is.

Steve


"Martinez, Rene" wrote:
>
> We have thick boards plated up and don't have lifted lands.  It depends on the material and design.  I would like the paragraph to stay the way it is.  If someone is okay with lifted pads and it is a design issue it can go on their drawing.
>
> Rene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benny Nilsson (EAB) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Proposed Change to Acceptance Criteria for
> Lif ted Lands
>
> Hello John. Does it realy need to be stated "agreed upon between user and supplier"? In my opinion "agreed upon...." is a part of "Approved PB Procurement Documentation" see Section 3.5 in -6011.
>
> Begards Benny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Perry [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: den 27 september 2002 23:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [IPC-600-6012] Proposed Change to Acceptance Criteria for
> Lifted Lands
>
> Colleagues,
>
> IPC would like a task group disposition on the following comment for the IPC-6012 B Revision effort.
>
> Ted Edwards of Dynaco Corporation has proposed rebuilding paragraph 3.3.4 in the IPC-6012B 2nd Working Draft relative to allowances for Lifted Lands to read:
>
> When visually examined in accordance with 3.3, the finished board shall not exhibit any lifted lands unless agreed upon between user and supplier.
>
> Reason for Recommended Change:  On thick boards with thick plating requirements, if a HASL finished is used there almost always exists lifted lands and this statement would mean that they would all have to be scrapped.
>
> Your reply is appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Perry
> IPC