Hi Kent,
I took a look at version -13, and the only change seems to be that you have
changed [] to {} around the priority level.
But, in the requirement text itself, you are still using shall, should or may.
My suggestion was to use consistent terminology within the requirement text
itself. I would suggest to always use shall. The priority level then indicates
the importance of the requirement.
Regards,
Christer
From: Kent Leung (kleung) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 20. marraskuuta 2013 2:30
To: Christer Holmberg; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12
OK. Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate your feedback. :)
Kent
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 11:58 PM
To: Kent Leung (kleung); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12
Hi Kent,
> Hi Christer. Thank you for the review. It's a good point that the language
> used to describe the requirement is consistent with the
> priority level so becomes a bit redundant. The marking of HIGH/MED/LOW makes
> the priority of the requirement explicitly clear.
> It's easier to identify and browse the requirements without having to get
> into the description of the requirement. Other authors can
> chime in. But I feel that there's value to maintaining the marking instead of
> using the text to specify the priority level.
I agree, and that is what I tried to say - eventhough my comment may have been
a little unclear :)
Regards,
Christer
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 5:54 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Document: draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 18 November 2013
IETF LC End Date: 26 November 2013
IETF Telechat Date: 12 December 2013
Summary: The document is well written, with one minor issue that the authors
might want to address.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues:
Q_GEN:
The document defines priority of each requirement as either [HIGH], [MED] or
[LOW], which is fine. But, in addition to that, depending on the priority, the
requirement text uses either "shall", "should" or "may".
Wouldn't it be more clean to use consistent terminology (e.g. "shall") in the
actual requirement text, as the priority is anyway indicated separately?
Editorial nits: None
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
