OK, thanks for all the responses.

For the record, I think the comment was submitted
by someone who was fabricating boards with edge
fingers, and the 50% rule was giving them trouble.

We have another conference call next week,
and I will forward your advice
appreciate your help...
Jack


.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Mike Hill <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Agree fabricators must push back when they see conductors near a routed or
> drilled edge.
>
> I have attached a real life example I had yesterday (Ipc-6012 class 3A
> board)   The conductor is 2 mils from a NPTH on polyimide material. Ergo:
> max halo is 1 mil....   I asked that all such conductors be shaved or moved
> to provide at least 15 mils and the customer agreed.
>
> Mike Hill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:05 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
>  Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] FAB: Acceptability of Haloing
>
> but people are putting planes 4-5 mils from the board edge now.
> Is 2mil of haloing really drastic enough to review?
>
> Or from the other side of the coin, any fabricator who sees that
> a designer has put conductors that close should immediately put
> the job "ON HOLD" for review until implications are discussed?
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you, but that's the problem...
>
> Jack
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Gandhi, Mahendra S (AS) <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > All Haloing condition must be reviewed with electrical design activities
> > to make a decision of acceptance when it is over 50% from edge to
> > conductor.
> >
> > Mahendra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:24 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [IPC-600-6012] FAB: Acceptability of Haloing
> >
> > Fabricators,
> >
> > This is an opportunity to influence the acceptability of your product!
> >
> > The IPC Standards Development Committee is working on the next
> > revision to IPC-A-600 (Acceptability of Printed Boards) which is a
> > visual reference companion to IPC-6012.
> >
> > One of the items we are currently discussing is the acceptability of
> > haloing along the board edge. Here is a link to where we stand now:
> >
> > http://frontdoor.biz/PCBportal/IPC-A-600H213.jpg
> >
> > The problem is, if the designer violates the recommendation in the
> > current IPC-2221 design guideline and puts traces or planes too close
> > to the board outline, with the current wording of "whichever is less"
> > your boards can be considered rejectable with even a very small
> > amount of haloing. Even intentional features like edge fingers can
> > make your boards rejectable.
> >
> > We aren't sure if we should reword this (and if so, how?)
> >
> > So the ball is in your court (because unless there is a logical
> > consensus
> > we probably won't change it).
> > I'll compile and submit any responses to the next committee meeting.
> >
> > Jack (aka "the new guy")
> >
>