Unnecessary dbgstat reinforcement

[steven-bellock]

As with all claims, the absence of the "dbgstat" claim means it is not reported.

Any reason this exists only for dbgstat? If not let's delete it.

[gmandyam]

EAT is past WGLC and is in Editor's queue. Changes to the standards specification at this point would need WG consensus. I suggest that this topic be raised in the WG if the person who raised this issue feels it is critical.

[gmandyam]

@steven-bellock

Apologies - I may have mis-read the original issue. Can you clarify? Do you mean to delete the 'dbgstat' claim, or delete the advisory sentence starting with 'As with all claims, ... ". Because if you meant the latter then we may be able to sweep this change in along with final edits, as it does not affect the normative aspects of the specification.

[steven-bellock]

delete the advisory sentence starting with 'As with all claims, ... ".

That one, unless there's a good reason it needs to be in dbgstat. Could also move it to the top of the document and make it more general

The absence of a claim within an EAT means it is not reported.