RE: comments on draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-06.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> 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 
> requirement.
> I think it is best to keep all that together so one can understand the
> requirements.
> 
> 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?

Bert