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

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