you should not standardize the note.  common usage- yes.  but not  
standardize - too many new requirements for new product...(5G is  
comming).  If you standardize the dwg note, there is no wirebondable  
gold come out for example (all MIL std...).  IMHO.  So many hi-Rel  
product required specific dwg notes, for example, chip on board,  
didn't have std dwg note until almost 10-15 years later... (possibly  
still don't have std dwg note).
jk
On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Steve Golemme wrote:

> All the notes are to supplement the standards.
>
> Have there been any efforts to standardize note options? I know it's
> something I've done almost everywhere I've worked.
>
> Regards,
> Stephen Golemme
> Manufacturing Engineer
> 650-214-5647
> x.company
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Jose A Rios <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Neither UL markings nor stackup markings are IPC requirements.  
>> Again go to
>> 6012D section 3.3.5; its outlined there.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Stadem, Richard D <Richard.Stadem@GD- 
>> MS.COM<
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't necessarily have to be. Fabrication drawing notes, and  
>> notes on
>> the assembly drawing normally take precedence over industry  
>> standards, as
>> they are product-specific.
>> The fab drawing and the assembly drawing are the "Bible" thou  
>> shalt go by
>> if there is a conflict. The exception to the order of precedence is
>> generally something in the contract.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:13 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [TN] IPC Standard, bare board vendor markings
>>
>> Dell - Internal Use - Confidential
>>
>> Is this statement supported (referenced) in an IPC/Industry Standard?
>>
>> Victor,
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Golemme
>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:07 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [TN] IPC Standard, bare board vendor markings
>>
>> We deal with power boards and sealing surfaces. The note I've had  
>> success
>> with is:
>>
>> SUPPLIER SHALL MARK STACKUP AND DATE CODE, SUPPLIER NAME AND/OR  
>> TRADEMARK,
>> AND UL FLAMMABILITY RATING IN NON-CONDUCTIVE INDELIBLE INK (COLOR  
>> WHITE OR
>> BLACK). SUPPLIER SHALL NOT ADD ANY TEXT OR MARKING IN COPPER.
>>
>> Stephen Golemme
>> Manufacturing Engineer, Makani
>> 650-214-5647
>> solveforx.com/makani<http://solveforx.com/makani>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jose A Rios <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Silk screen (or etched metal) are acceptable forms of marking.
>> Requirements for marking are basically legibility and traceability
>> (you basically have to be able to match the conformance coupons to  
>> the
>> boards they represent), by some method of serialization, which shall
>> include date code. UL marking is not an IPC requirement, if required
>> the board user must specify it. When using etched metal as  
>> marking, it
>> shall not violate min spacing to board conductors (same with
>> conductive inks). See 6012D 3.3.5 and its subsections.
>>
>>
>> José (Joey) Ríos, Sr QA Engineer
>> Mission Assurance Manager
>> Kavli Institute for Astrophysics & Space Research Massachusetts
>> Institute of Technology [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>  
>> <mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> (617)324-6272
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 2:42 PM, [log in to unmask]<mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Fellow TechNetters:
>>
>> IPC-1066 covers Lead free markings/Symbols/:Labels, etc.   Which IPC
>> Standard covers bare board vendor logo/UL Rating/markings/production
>> date/REV and layer counts.   Is silk screening printing of  
>> information
>> acceptable beside etch from original external copper foil.
>>
>> Victor,
>>