[OASIS Issue Tracker] (VIRTIO-168) Conformance clause clarification, about the names of profiles of conformance (and their combinations)

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

     [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/VIRTIO-168?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Chet Ensign updated VIRTIO-168:
-------------------------------
              Project: OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC  (was: Technical Advisory Board)
                  Key: VIRTIO-168  (was: TAB-1669)
          Component/s:     (was: Public reviews)
    Affects Version/s:     (was: Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.1)

> Conformance clause clarification, about the names of profiles of conformance (and their combinations)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: VIRTIO-168
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/VIRTIO-168
>             Project: OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>         Environment: Conformance
>            Reporter: Jacques Durand
>            Priority: Major
>
> Overall, well-formed conformance section (one of the best we TAB reviewers have seen!) The main conformance targets - drivers, devices - are well identified. The specification is clearly attributing normative requirements to either driver, or device.
> Some conformance aspects could still be clarified:
>  * All the subsections under 7.2 or 7.3 are named "clauses" in 7.1. So their titles should be "Clause XYZ". Or else if we want to keep "CLause" to only the top-level set of requirements - then define just a couple of clauses in 7.1, e.g. "Conformance Clause for VIRTIO1.1 drivers". Then all thee following subsections should just be titled "Conformance requirements sets" e.g. "COnformance requirements for PCI drivers"), and preferably not "clause" (keeping "clause" for only the full set of requirements that a product can claim for conformance).
>  * In any case, it is good to associate a clear name to each conformance level/profile that can be claimed. For example, "PCI network driver" (if satisfying 7.2 + 7.2.1 + 7.2.4. Is that a meaningful combination? irt seems so according to 7.1). So that there is no ambiguity of what are the valid conformance profiles. Some parameterization of a clause can be used: Look in TAB guideline : [http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html] for "variable conformance clauses" (section 5.5). In other words: define the precise statement that someone should use when claiming a conformance profile.
> Â



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.7.2#77003)