[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=67105#comment-67105 ] 

Anish Karmarkar commented on CAMP-232:
--------------------------------------

SHALLs are requirements. SHOULD and MAY are not mandatory, but that does not make them useless. SHOULDs are recommendations and MAYs are optional. But in terms of conformance SHALLs are what matter. Not an issue.

> 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)