Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#271 closed task (fixed)

Review groupcomm requirements language

Reported by: esko.dijk@… Owned by: esko.dijk@…
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: groupcomm Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Groupcomm I-D contains requirements language: the use of this should be reviewed.

Argument pro: requirements language helps to ensure a uniform, predictable use of CoAP group communication. Implementations can choose to comply to the (optional) guidelines of this I-D.
Argument against: informational RFC hence no normative requirements should be posed.

If requirements language is kept, then each use of MAY/MUST etc. should be reviewed.

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by esko.dijk@…

  • Owner changed from draft-ietf-core-groupcomm@… to esko.dijk@…
  • Status changed from new to assigned

Use of requirements language was reviewed by the authors; it is commonly used in informational RFCs (e.g. 6663, 5867, 3576) therefore propose to keep it. Requirements languagage serves these purposes in the GroupComm? I-D:

  1. to clarify/quote/'echo' relevant normative requirements from other RFCs/I-Ds.
  2. to establish clear guidelines for a recommended way of using CoAP group communication; where implementers are free to follow these recommendations or not. To claim conformance to these guidelines an implementation MUST address all normative requirements stated.

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by esko.dijk@…

addition to 2. in above comment: in short, for interoperability. As indicated in the CoRE WG meeting at IETF 86.
Also this use of requirements language should be clearly explained in the terminology section.

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by esko.dijk@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from assigned to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.