3. Volunteers to work on Requirements (was RE: [Asrg] voting?)

[Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com>]

Eric, if you wish to work on requirements, you should begin with the work
that has already been done in the group. Please see my message from March
19th.
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01721.html
Also, Russell Brand volunteered to work on requirements, so I suggest that
the two of you touch bases.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:49 PM
> To: 'matthew richards'; 'asrg@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] voting?

> So for the past few days that is the task I have been 
> monitoring and trying to 
> tackle by participating (where I can) and soliciting 
> information on the 
> consensus or merely 'thinking' on some of the issues.  So far 
> a paper-man of 
> requirements has emerged, but there is (quite) a bit more to 
> go before I can 
> present a draft.
> 
> The draft of requirements ToC will include information (I 
> suggest if anyone has 
> any advice or wants to help now would be as good a time as 
> any) on requirements 
> in the following formats:
> 
> Section #. Requirement
> Section #.1 Requirement Rationale
> Section #.1.1 Scenario (optional)
> 
> I will not use the RFC2119 the convention for keywords, but 
> will flow with 
> consensus as follows:
> 
> "  keywords MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, and MAY are NOT as in RFC 2119,
>    but rather:
> 
>    o  MUST: This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", means that
>       the described behavior or characteristic is an absolute
>       requirement for a proposed ASRG specification.
> 
>    o  MUST NOT: This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", means that the
>       described behavior or characteristic is an absolute 
> prohibition of
>       a proposed ASRG specification.
> 
>    o  SHOULD: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", means that
>       there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances for a
>       proposed ASRG specification to ignore described behavior or
>       characteristics.
> 
>    o  MAY: This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", means that 
> described
>       behavior or characteristics are truly optional for a 
> proposed ASRG
>       specification.  One proposed specification may choose to include
>       the described behavior or characteristic while another proposed
>       specification may omit the same behavior or 
> characteristic.         "
> 

Why not use RFC2119 conventions? This could lead to much confusion.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg