Eric, if you wish to work on requirements, you should begin with the work
that has already been done in the group. Please see my message from March
19th.
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01721.html
Also, Russell Brand volunteered to work on requirements, so I suggest that
the two of you touch bases.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:49 PM
To: 'matthew richards'; 'asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
Subject: RE: [Asrg] voting?
So for the past few days that is the task I have been
monitoring and trying to
tackle by participating (where I can) and soliciting
information on the
consensus or merely 'thinking' on some of the issues. So far
a paper-man of
requirements has emerged, but there is (quite) a bit more to
go before I can
present a draft.
The draft of requirements ToC will include information (I
suggest if anyone has
any advice or wants to help now would be as good a time as
any) on requirements
in the following formats:
Section #. Requirement
Section #.1 Requirement Rationale
Section #.1.1 Scenario (optional)
I will not use the RFC2119 the convention for keywords, but
will flow with
consensus as follows:
" keywords MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, and MAY are NOT as in RFC 2119,
but rather:
o MUST: This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", means that
the described behavior or characteristic is an absolute
requirement for a proposed ASRG specification.
o MUST NOT: This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", means that the
described behavior or characteristic is an absolute
prohibition of
a proposed ASRG specification.
o SHOULD: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", means that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances for a
proposed ASRG specification to ignore described behavior or
characteristics.
o MAY: This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", means that
described
behavior or characteristics are truly optional for a
proposed ASRG
specification. One proposed specification may choose to include
the described behavior or characteristic while another proposed
specification may omit the same behavior or
characteristic. "
Why not use RFC2119 conventions? This could lead to much confusion.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg