RE: [v6tc] v6tc - is there life

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Karen E. Nielsen (AH/LMD) wrote:
> Another issue. I have some problems with SHOULD and MAY 
> requirements. I would much rather stick with must-only requirements, 
> perhaps with the addition that a certain feature (requirement) 
> possibly could be profited from in this and that deployment 
> scenario. I do not see the point in having SHOULD requirements and 
> in general I do not see the point in using the words MUST, SHOULD 
> and MAY in a requirement document.

I think it's useful to be able document those features which we think 
really must be in the solution, as must, but also be able to express 
those features we'd really, really like to see in the solution if 
that's feasible from the solution's point of view, as "should". 
Otherwise the result is either: 1) too few requirements to make a 
realistically usable solution in all the scenarios, or 2) elevating of 
too many 'should' statements to musts.

The usefulness of "may" requirements comes not that they're mays, but 
from the fact that the reader sees that those requirements have been 
considered and they are NOT shoulds or musts.  That could be 
accomplished as a non-requirements section as well, of course. I don't 
have personally a strong opinion on what to do with these, removing 
them would be OK by me.

I agree that uppercase keywords shouldn't be used, unless we define 
when those mean ourselves.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
v6tc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc