Vague and inappropriate style in second part of conformance clause

Vague requirements in second part of conformance clause.

• unlike the normative content in the narrative, there is no room for “should” here: an implementation either conforms, or not, to a particular level/profile of conformance. Will it conform here if it does not satisfy the “should”? Probably. So if one wants to make a distinction, one should have two levels of conformance: on higher (for those that satisfy the "should") and one lower (for those who dont).
  Note: any optional recommendations are more appropriate in the normative body of the specification as opposed to the conformance section. When referring to such optional statements in the specification body, a clause may then "tighten" it further (make it a "must"), or ignore it.
• unclear what is the "reference documentation". And have these been stated as normative? The clause(s) should precisely refer to normative content.
• "respecting those constraints" and "anticipate those processing expectations" is too vague. The material to be respected/anticipated should be unambiguously and precisely referred to.