9 Conformance - Relationship btw mandatory and RFC2119 not defined

XMLWordPrintable

    • Type: Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Priority: Blocker
    • 1.2
    • Affects Version/s: 1.2
    • Component/s: Spec
    • None
    • Environment:

      Conformance

    • Hide

      Re-cast the conformance clauses to have meaningful structure and lose the mandatory versus non-mandatory (not defined anyway) distinction. That will result in conformance clauses that set expectations that further interchange.

      Or, remove the SHOULD and MAY material as irrelevant to the implementation of a conformance target.

      Show
      Re-cast the conformance clauses to have meaningful structure and lose the mandatory versus non-mandatory (not defined anyway) distinction. That will result in conformance clauses that set expectations that further interchange. Or, remove the SHOULD and MAY material as irrelevant to the implementation of a conformance target.

      The conformance target definitions in 9 Conformance share the form:

      "...SHALL comply with all the CAMP ***** or ***** mandatory requirements listed in this specification, as summaried in Appendix C.1, "Mandatory Statements"."

      Despite in invocation of RFC 2119, which provides levels of expectations for interchange in 1.6.2, the only expectation invoked by these conformance targets are with the keyword SHALL.

      That is to say that the conformance requirements defined in Appendix C.2 Non-Mandatory, are discarded and rendered nugatory by this definition of conformance targets. Why SHOULD and MAY requirements are defined only to be ignored isn't clear.

      SHOULD and MAY carry less force than SHALL but for interchange purposes, are not valueless.

            Assignee:
            Martin Chapman (Inactive)
            Reporter:
            Chet Ensign
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: