ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: 3. Volunteers to work on Requirements (was RE: [Asrg] voting?)

2003-04-02 09:23:05
On Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:38 AM, Paul Judge 
[SMTP:paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com] wrote:
8<...>8
Why not use RFC2119 conventions? This could lead to much confusion.

While I concede some confusion could result, given an environment where 
requirements are being developed the 2119 definitions do not all aptly apply. 
 This divergence allows us to develop a set of definitions that encompasses the 
intent of the requirements implementation conformance, rather than pro forma 
compliance with some standard.

Particularly the following:

   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.


Where in the case of defining requirements perhaps the full implications of 
ignoring a particular characteristic we describe may not be necessary of 
applicable to the methodology. This and the exclusion of SHOULD NOT, where we 
would not want to limit the proposal to the constraints of a particular 
methodology when proposal may be offering completely different approaches that 
satisfy the requirements. And;

   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.

Where in the case of a proposal we again do not want to limit the methodologies 
to any specific subset of solutions.  In the 2119 parlance the use of MAY 
connotes that interoperation considerations with different implementations that 
do or do not support a specific option or characteristic, MUST be considered. 
 In the case of these requirements I would propose that the interoperability 
considerations would be left either to the IETF or not considered as the 
proposal would constitute the basis for operation.


-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>