Date: Tues, 09 Jul 96 17:21:09
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ASM: 610B / 2000A Comparison
To: mx%"[log in to unmask]"
Cc:
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Has anyone performed a detailed comparison analysis or a cross
> reference matrix between the acceptance criteria of IPC-A-610B
> and MIL-STD-2000A?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> The mail list is provided by IPC using SmartList v3.05
> To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:
> [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.
Though a different subject, I understand MIL-STD-2000, MIL-STD-454, et
al, are now cancelled. I presume you are involved in an effort with a
contract prior to this action or a follow-on to an existing contract. I
was aware that even MIL-Q-9858 and MIL-I-45208 (including all referenced
documents) were cancelled without replacement in the fall of '95.
Hellooooooo ISO 9001, ANSI's, IPC's, etc., etc.
Lynn M. Perry, Sr.
Aerotek Maxim Group
Lynn,
Thank you for your input. Yes, you are correct in assuming we are engaged
in transitioning existing MIL-SPEC contract requirements to ISO, IPC etc.
Unfortunely, this process seems more difficult than obtaining our
ANSI/RAB ISO 9001 certification which we received a year ago.
Acceptance of IPC-A-610B as a direct replacement for
MIL-STD-2000A doesn't appear to have a lot of Government support.
Thus, my reason for looking for comparison analysis between the two
specifications. Surely, we are not the first defense contractor to
formally address this in the form of contract block change.
Dan Epperson
EFW Inc.
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
