[OASIS Issue Tracker] (VIRTIO-165) wording i conformance clause should clarify the status of SHOULD normative statements

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

     [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/VIRTIO-165?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Michael S. Tsirkin updated VIRTIO-165:
--------------------------------------
    Affects Version/s: virtio 1.1 cs01

> wording i conformance clause should clarify the status of SHOULD normative statements
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: VIRTIO-165
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/VIRTIO-165
>             Project: OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: virtio 1.1 cs01
>         Environment: Conformance
>            Reporter: Jacques Durand
>            Priority: Major
>
> Each conformance clause sub-section starts with something that looks like a mandatory requirement:
> e.g.:
> "A network device MUST conform to the following normative statements:"
> But many of the following statements are optional (SHOULD) in the specification body. So it is then confusing to say "... MUST conform to a SHOULD statement...."
> That is why it is NOT recommended to use normative language like MUST (and even less SHOULD) in a conformance clause. A conf clause is not there to tell you what to do or not do (MUST....), but only to state under which conditions you can claim conformance to XYZ.
> It is better to say:
> "an implementation that satisfies all mandatory (MUST) requirements in 5.1.4.1, 5.1.6.2.... qualifies (or may claim conformance) as a VIRTIO1.1 network device"
> Or in some conformance profiles, you can override a SHOULD in the spec body and make it mandatory.



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