[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: comments on draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-06.txt
> Well, all the detailed requirements are grouped under section
> 4 and they
> are all "marked" with a "must" (or "should/may"). Seems like a
> reasonably clear way to present them.
> There is some (non-requirement) text preceding the actual requirements
> to provide background/definition for the formulation of the
> I think it is best to keep all that together so one can understand the
> The reason we did not capitalise the "must/should/may" is that this
> document is going for Informational track so we were not sure
> MUST/SHOULD/MAY were appropriate. Sounds like they are, so we will
> follow your suggestion and capitalize them.
Mmmm.. take a look at RFC3216 sect 4 for example. I think such a form
makes it really clear as to what exactly the requirement is and what
type of requirement it is and what the motivation/explanation is.
I was not so much worried aboutMUST/SHOULD/MAY not being capitalized.
More that the explanantory text and the actual requirements and
sometimes examples/scenario-text is all mixed.
For example, could you easily tell me how many mandatoty and
how many optional requirements there are?