Section 4.4.3 Architectural Implications is a GOOD example for Conformance

[Rex Brooks <rex.brooks@ncoic.org>]

Hi Everyone,

If you look at Section 4.4.3 Architectural Implications you will see a 
very clear example of conformance statements constructed in the way we 
need to add a Conformance Section quickly and easily in the final 
specification. The only other thing we would need to do for each section 
is make sure that any conformance statements are identified in the body 
of that section because that would need to specified in the Conformance 
Section in addition to the Architectural Implications.

I waited to see if this kind of language made it into the PR spec so I 
could use it as an example. So, thanks Ken.This made my task much easier.


If you want to review this material the url is 
:http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html#_Toc170119661

For other authors, all you need to do is use the "MUST, MUST NOT; SHALL, 
SHALL NOT; SHOULD, SHOULD NOT; MAY, MAY NOT; and RECOMMENDED; as well as 
alternatives like REQUIRED and OPTIONAL" the way Ken did in Section 
4.4.3 for your "Implications" sections and the body of the sections you 
wrote or for which are taking responsibility.

The only other thing we need to do is to identify what constitutes a 
Conformance Target, e.g. a SOA-RAF Reference Architecture, or a 
Reference Architecture that correctly implements the Normative 
statements in the SOA-RAF. I suggest we discuss this since I think we 
should also define what constitutes a SOA-RAF-specific SOA Ecosystem, 
such as those "... using a set of SOA-RAF-conformant registries for 
visibility, a set of SOA-RAF policies and contracts and a set of SOA-RAF 
policy registries for mediation."

Of course, this is just a suggestion. All we need to do is to define the 
simpler Conformance Targets and Conformance Clauses.

Cheers,
Rex