[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: suggestions for charter
Greg Giles sent: > Good start, I would also recommend we add: > > - to ensure that each part of the specification maps explicitly to a > documented requirement > > I think it's bettter to be explicit about this, rather than implicit. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this - or rather how the discussion goes when someone suggests a part violates the test. I certainly agree there we can't include things in the specification just because it looked like a convenient vehicle to sneak in something that is unnecessary for the purpose of BT protocol. But there will be parts that are there to support or explain other parts, but which don't directly map to an original pre-stated requirement. Depending on the granularity of the requirement statements, I'd expect some of them to be fulfilled by the specification as a whole rather than a part. Or do you mean the parts must have a justification, possibly written subsequent to the part. Peter > > My 2 cents > Greg > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Tauber [mailto:jtauber@bowstreet.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 2:55 PM > > To: bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: suggestions for charter > > > > > > > > I'd like to suggest the following points for consideration for the > > specification sub-committee charter: > > > > - to decide on document formats > > - to appoint editors > > - to gather material written by other groups (esp model and > messaging sub > > committees) > > - to make available draft specifications > > - to record feedback on draft specifications and pass on to other groups > > - to publish final specifications > > - to maintain errata > > > > Comments / suggestions / additions? > > > > James > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC