Re: [rfc-i] Table of conformance requirements.

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 18 June 2020 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36993A0B0B; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EMeY1vdCmy9I; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C1FE3A0A4A; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C13DF40718; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A416F40718 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y-O8M7AV3MFR for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9787F40705 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.112] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49nY1N4QvGzyTH; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:08:08 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiMOHMWcxFCYMdW_fsWsPpkC0vTt_0=+MzQfCm4qy=PTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:08:08 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 614156888.020269-631ed489398a92485fd6190ada446f06
Message-Id: <D6A8EDCA-D864-48C5-844E-D627F056115C@tzi.org>
References: <CAMm+LwiMOHMWcxFCYMdW_fsWsPpkC0vTt_0=+MzQfCm4qy=PTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Table of conformance requirements.
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

There is a whole industry around requirements tracking.
I’m sure the Ribose people can tell us more about that.

> Each MUST in a specification should have at least one corresponding unit test to check compliance.

Yeah sure.

RFC 4120:
   *  Principals MUST keep their secret keys secret.

I’d love to see that unit test :-)

The other problem is that we simply don’t state all requirements in BCP14 language.
Very often, most requirements are stated in describing an architecture or a protocol; they are phrased as statements of fact.  Extracting and labeling these requirements for requirements tracking is an art form.

> And this needs to be expressible somehow in XML. 

I played around some with using kramdown’s auto-indexing feature for BCP14 keywords.  With today’s xml2rfc, that gives you an index of BCP14 usage.  Not exactly what you want, but just a few lines of kramdown markdown.

I never used the results of these experiments in a document, mainly because the lack of BCP14 language on so many of the actual requirements made the result too sketchy.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest