[OASIS Issue Tracker] (CAMP-232) 9 Conformance - Relationship btw mandatory and RFC2119 not defined

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/CAMP-232?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=67226#comment-67226 ] 

Martin Chapman commented on CAMP-232:
-------------------------------------

Proposal:

The following sentences should be appended to the conformance statements of 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4 respectively:

A CAMP Provider supporting any CAMP Provider or Provider optional feature shall comply with the requirements for that feature listed in this specification and summarized in Appendix C.2 "Non-Mandatory Statements."

A CAMP Consumer supporting any CAMP Consumer or Consumer optional feature shall comply with the requirements for that feature listed in this specification and summarized in Appendix C.2 "Non-Mandatory Statements."

If a PDP contains an optional PDP feature it shall comply with the requirements for that feature listed  in this specification and summarized in Appendix C.2 "Non-Mandatory Statements."

If a Plan contains an optional Plan feature it shall comply with the requirements for that feature listed  in this specification and summarized in Appendix C.2 "Non-Mandatory Statements."


> 9 Conformance - Relationship btw mandatory and RFC2119 not defined
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CAMP-232
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/CAMP-232
>             Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>         Environment: Conformance
>            Reporter: Chet Ensign
>            Assignee: Martin Chapman
>            Priority: Blocker
>
> 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.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)