review last proposal from Thomas (see discourse); provisional reactions
Bostjan Lah so far it seems a bit of better proposal because address ADL2 changes and does not breaks the data, btu we need to do further evaluation on the proposal;
Bostjan Lah also i am not sure why we need to remove the 000 digits (zero-padding) from the at-codes; it would be nice if we don’t have to do this
Sebastian Garde I would like to know and see how can we easily convert ADL2 archetypes to ADL1.4, because we will be needed for a while
Seref Arikan did we had evaluation on what will be the impact on converting all archetypes?
further discussions going on - it looks like there is not sufficient incentive for the SEC switch over to this new proposal, it is still preferred to stick to original decision made at Arnhem.
Bostjan Lah, Ian McNicoll we should then analyse if we can use IdSys and AtSys numbering as profiles added to ADL specs, where community is most likely goings to use AtSys
further discussion and reaction about going on this path