this is from: https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TAB-88

The text of this attribute now reads:

*****
The value of this node expresses the version of the CAMP specification to which the Deployment Plan conforms. This value SHALL be the Specification Version String of the CAMP specification to which this Deployment Plan conforms. [PDP-18]
For Deployment Plans that conform to this document, the value of this node SHALL be "CAMP 1.1" as defined in Section Error! Reference source not found. "Specification Version". [PDP-19]
*****

I am not certain what the two SHALL requirements gain here? The first sentence captures the legitimate data value of this attribute. If it doesn't have that value, missing or some improper value, "CAMP 25" or some such, then it fails to meet the definition of the attribute, which should make it non-conforming.

Or to put it another way, saying SHALL never guarantees that an application or file will in fact conform. It isn't self-executing. There has to be some test of the condition.

I would just use the first sentence:

"The value of this node expresses the version of the CAMP specification to which the Deployment Plan conforms."

And then a note to say:

Note: The value for this version of CAMP is: "CAMP 1.1." 1.7 Specification Version (that last bit as a hyperlink)