Re: [rtcweb] RTP usage: requirement levels

Martin,

If you have suggestions for specific changes where the recommendations in the draft are unclear, we'd be happy to receive them. The classifications you suggest below are not appropriate for all the normative statements in the draft, so it's not clear exactly what you think needs to change.

Colin

On 16 Jul 2012, at 19:38, Martin Thomson wrote:
> The RTP usage draft current uses MUST, SHOULD, MAY to indicate two
> levels of compliance.  This is not a particularly good division for
> this sort of draft.
> 
> Firstly, it's unclear what meaningful distinction there is between
> SHOULD and MAY.  Then there is the distinction between MUST implement
> and MUST use.
> 
> The following classifications are more relevant to this sort of draft.
> 
> mandatory to USE
> - all implementations MUST always use this feature
> - there is no reason to signal support for the feature
> - there is no reason to provide a means to disable it
> - no API requirements need to be derived for features that are mandatory to use
> 
> mandatory to IMPLEMENT
> - all implementations MUST include support for the feature
> - implementations MUST provide a means to enable and disable the
> feature (API requirement)
> - there is no API requirement for indicating support of the feature
> 
> mandatory to DISABLE
> - implementations MAY include support for the feature
> - implementations MUST provide a means to signal support for the
> feature (API requirement)
> - implementations that support the feature MUST provide a means to
> enable and disable the feature (optional API requirement)
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/