Re: [onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

2018-09-10 Thread Zu Qiang 
Hello, Ben
The following is the response from Steven Wright, which I 
totally agree with him. But if you would like to change the ONAP community 
decision, may be you should call in the VNGRQTS meeting tomorrow at 8am (New 
York time zone).
“Zu Qiang, Ben,

The rest of the VNFRQTS are defined using the RC2119 keywords, and I'd rather 
not change that at this point. If you are adapting some text from elsewhere ( 
3GPP?) then translating a SHALL"-> "MUST" would normally work based on the 
definition in RFC2119.
regards
Steven Wright ”

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 2:37 PM
To: Zu Qiang ; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
Cc: 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' ; Hillis, Marge 
(Nokia - US) 
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

Zu Qiang,

   Throughout your email you assert that we should not use the word “SHALL” 
which is patently absurd.

   Even in RFC2119 there is provision for the use of the word Shall. And it is 
never good when you start throwing the “bible” at people!

   We shall do what is logical and makes sense to our customers: the readers, 
developers, architects, and testers.

Best regards,
-Ben Cheung, PhD, DMTS, ALTA
  ATF Architecture Systems Engineer
  Mobile Networks, Nokia
  Tel +1 (908) 679-6615
  Email  ben.che...@nokia.com
  600-700 Mountain Ave, Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA / #2C-378

From: Zu Qiang [mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 1:26 PM
To: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
mailto:ben.che...@nokia.com>>; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
mailto:sw3...@att.com>>
Cc: 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' 
mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>; Hillis, 
Marge (Nokia - US) mailto:marge.hil...@nokia.com>>
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

Hello, Ben
With over 30 years standardization working experience, I do 
understand your confusions.
First of all,  “SHOULD” is defined in the RFC with the meaning “RECOMMENDED”, 
not past tense of “shall”.
Second, using MUST or SHALL or both as “REQUIRED” is an ONAP community 
decision. Steven shall clarify it as I asked in my early email:
“According to the vnf requirement section 3, “Requirements are identified as 
either MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, or MAY as defined in RFC 2119.” 
Unfortunately, RFC2119 is specified in last century. Do we have any plan to 
update that requirement by including “SHALL” as normative text in Casablanca?” 
(Personally, I don’t think we should.)

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
mailto:ben.che...@nokia.com>>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 12:58 PM
To: Zu Qiang mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com>>; WRIGHT, 
STEVEN A mailto:sw3...@att.com>>
Cc: 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' 
mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>; Hillis, 
Marge (Nokia - US) mailto:marge.hil...@nokia.com>>
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

Zu Qiang,

   RFC2119 definitely allows you to use the word “SHALL” (See below)

   Text using “Must Not” and “Should Not” are not requirements!
   There are a million things that a PNF must not and should not do … for 
example a PNF shall not eat lobsters, a PNF shall not cross the street, a PNF 
shall not buy tulips. You can replace these verb-objects with anything else 
they are just as meaningless.

   As a systems engineer you shall always specify in the “positive” text of 
what needs to be done.

[Docs] 
[txt|pdf]
 [draft-bradner-k...] 
[Tracker] 
[Diff1] 
[Diff2] 
[Errata]

Updated by: 8174 BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
Errata Exist

Network Working Group S. Bradner

Request for Comments: 2119Harvard University

BCP: 14   March 1997

Category: Best Current Practice

Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels





Status of this Memo



   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the

   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.



Abstract



   In many standards track documents several words are used to signify

   the requirements in the specification.  These words are often

   capitalized.  This document defines these words as they should be

   interpreted in IETF documents.  Authors who follow these guidelines

   should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:



  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL

  NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",

Re: [onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

2018-09-10 Thread Zu Qiang 
+1

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org  On Behalf Of 
WRIGHT, STEVEN A
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 12:41 PM
To: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

Zu Qiang, Ben,

The rest of the VNFRQTS are defined using the RC2119 keywords, and I'd rather 
not change that at this point. If you are adapting some text from elsewhere ( 
3GPP?) then translating a SHALL"-> "MUST" would normally work based on the 
definition in RFC2119.
regards
Steven Wright


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#12346): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/12346
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/25500512/21656
Mute #vnfrqts: https://lists.onap.org/mk?hashtag=vnfrqts=2740164
Group Owner: onap-discuss+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

2018-09-10 Thread Zu Qiang 
Hello, Ben
With over 30 years standardization working experience, I do 
understand your confusions.
First of all,  “SHOULD” is defined in the RFC with the meaning “RECOMMENDED”, 
not past tense of “shall”.
Second, using MUST or SHALL or both as “REQUIRED” is an ONAP community 
decision. Steven shall clarify it as I asked in my early email:
“According to the vnf requirement section 3, “Requirements are identified as 
either MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, or MAY as defined in RFC 2119.” 
Unfortunately, RFC2119 is specified in last century. Do we have any plan to 
update that requirement by including “SHALL” as normative text in Casablanca?” 
(Personally, I don’t think we should.)

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 12:58 PM
To: Zu Qiang ; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
Cc: 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' ; Hillis, Marge 
(Nokia - US) 
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

Zu Qiang,

   RFC2119 definitely allows you to use the word “SHALL” (See below)

   Text using “Must Not” and “Should Not” are not requirements!
   There are a million things that a PNF must not and should not do … for 
example a PNF shall not eat lobsters, a PNF shall not cross the street, a PNF 
shall not buy tulips. You can replace these verb-objects with anything else 
they are just as meaningless.

   As a systems engineer you shall always specify in the “positive” text of 
what needs to be done.

[Docs] 
[txt|pdf]
 [draft-bradner-k...] 
[Tracker] 
[Diff1] 
[Diff2] 
[Errata]

Updated by: 8174 BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
Errata Exist

Network Working Group S. Bradner

Request for Comments: 2119Harvard University

BCP: 14   March 1997

Category: Best Current Practice

Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels





Status of this Memo



   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the

   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.



Abstract



   In many standards track documents several words are used to signify

   the requirements in the specification.  These words are often

   capitalized.  This document defines these words as they should be

   interpreted in IETF documents.  Authors who follow these guidelines

   should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:



  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL

  NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and

  "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in

  RFC 2119.



   Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement

   level of the document in which they are used.



1. MUST

 This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the

   definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.



2. MUST NOT

 This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the

   definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.



3. SHOULD

 This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there

   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a

   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and

   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.



4. SHOULD NOT

 This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that

   there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the

   particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full

   implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed

   before implementing any behavior described with this label.











Bradner  Best Current Practice  [Page 1]



 

RFC 2119 RFC Key Words 
   March 1997





5. MAY

 This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is

   truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the item because a

   particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that

   it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.

   An

Re: [onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

2018-09-10 Thread WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
Zu Qiang, Ben,

The rest of the VNFRQTS are defined using the RC2119 keywords, and I'd rather 
not change that at this point. If you are adapting some text from elsewhere ( 
3GPP?) then translating a SHALL"-> "MUST" would normally work based on the 
definition in RFC2119.
regards
Steven Wright

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#12343): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/12343
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/25500512/21656
Mute #vnfrqts: https://lists.onap.org/mk?hashtag=vnfrqts=2740164
Group Owner: onap-discuss+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

2018-09-10 Thread Zu Qiang 
Hello, Ben
Thank you for your excellent explanation of the English words.
Normative text is an ISO terminology and supported by each 
standardization origination, which you cannot find in any dictionary. For 
instance, IETF is using MUST/SHOULD/MAY as specified in RFC2119, which is a 
standardization community agreement made 20 years ago. ONAP is following the 
IETF way as defined in section 3 of the VNF requirement document. But 3GPP is 
using SHALL/SHOULD/MAY as specified in 3GPP TR21.801. 3GPP2 has same definition 
in 3GPP2 SC.R1005.
You shall not assume that ONAP is going to use the same normative text which is 
used in another RAN standardization origination. As I recommended early, please 
read RFC2119.

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 9:13 AM
To: Zu Qiang ; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
Cc: 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' ; Hillis, Marge 
(Nokia - US) 
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

Zu Qiang,

English is my primary language.
Difference Between Shall and Should. The basic difference between “shall” and 
“should” is that “should” is the past tense of “shall.” ... “Should” is the 
conditional form used for “shall.” Occasionally it is used as a past tense of 
“shall.”

There is also a second sense indicating a strength of assertion. In 20 
years of writing requirements for RAN systems we have always used “SHALL” 
instead of “SHOULD”.

shall
SHal,SHəl/ verb modal verb: shall

  1.  (in the first person) expressing the future tense. "this time next week I 
shall be in Scotland"
  2.  expressing a strong assertion or intention. "they shall succeed"
should
SHo͝od,SHəd/ verb modal verb: should
   1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when 
criticizing someone's actions.
2. used to indicate what is probable.

Best regards,
-Ben Cheung, PhD, DMTS, ALTA
  ATF Architecture Systems Engineer
  Mobile Networks, Nokia
  Tel +1 (908) 679-6615
  Email  ben.che...@nokia.com
  600-700 Mountain Ave, Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA / #2C-378

From: Zu Qiang [mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:15 AM
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

English is not my first language. But I believe Steven can help with this.
In standardization English language, both “SHALL” and “MUST” means “REQUIRED”. 
For instance, 3GPP is using “SHALL” and IETF is using “MUST”. “SHOULD” means 
“RECOMMENDED”. “MAY” means “OPTIONAL”. For more details, please read RFC2119.

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
mailto:ben.che...@nokia.com>>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 7:54 AM
To: Zu Qiang mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com>>; WRIGHT, 
STEVEN A mailto:sw3...@att.com>>
Cc: 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' 
mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>; Hillis, 
Marge (Nokia - US) mailto:marge.hil...@nokia.com>>
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

All,

REQUIREMENTS TEXT should be using “SHALL” not “SHOULD”.

I SHOULD have gone to the market. (PAST Tense desire)
He SHALL go to the market. (Indicates that REQUIRED future need)
The system SHOULD have activated the LED (but it was too late).
The system SHALL activate the LED (when xyz occurs).

Difference Between Shall and Should. The basic difference between “shall” and 
“should” is that “should” is the past tense of “shall.” ... “Should” is the 
conditional form used for “shall.” Occasionally it is used as a past tense of 
“shall.”

shall
SHal,SHəl/ verb modal verb: shall

  1.  (in the first person) expressing the future tense. "this time next week I 
shall be in Scotland"
2.   expressing a strong assertion or intention. "they shall succeed"

Best regards,
-Ben Cheung, PhD, DMTS, ALTA
  ATF Architecture Systems Engineer
  Mobile Networks, Nokia
  Tel +1 (908) 679-6615
  Email  ben.che...@nokia.com
  600-700 Mountain Ave, Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA / #2C-378

From: Zu Qiang [mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 7:34 AM
To: WRIGHT, STEVEN A mailto:sw3...@att.com>>
Cc: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
mailto:ben.che...@nokia.com>>; 
'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' 
mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text

Hello, Steven
According to the vnf requirement section 3, “Requirements are 
identified as either MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, or MAY as defined in 
RFC 2119.” Unfortunately, RFC2119 is specified in last century. Do we have any 
plan to update that requirement by including “SHALL” as normative text in 
Casablanca?

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
mailto:ben.che...@nokia.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 1:42 PM
To: Zu Qiang mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com>>; WRIGHT, 
STEVEN A mailto:sw3...@att.com>>; 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' 
mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: RE:

Re: [onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

2018-09-10 Thread Zu Qiang 
English is not my first language. But I believe Steven can help with this.
In standardization English language, both “SHALL” and “MUST” means “REQUIRED”. 
For instance, 3GPP is using “SHALL” and IETF is using “MUST”. “SHOULD” means 
“RECOMMENDED”. “MAY” means “OPTIONAL”. For more details, please read RFC2119.

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 7:54 AM
To: Zu Qiang ; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
Cc: 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' ; Hillis, Marge 
(Nokia - US) 
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text > SHOULD vs SHALL

All,

REQUIREMENTS TEXT should be using “SHALL” not “SHOULD”.

I SHOULD have gone to the market. (PAST Tense desire)
He SHALL go to the market. (Indicates that REQUIRED future need)
The system SHOULD have activated the LED (but it was too late).
The system SHALL activate the LED (when xyz occurs).

Difference Between Shall and Should. The basic difference between “shall” and 
“should” is that “should” is the past tense of “shall.” ... “Should” is the 
conditional form used for “shall.” Occasionally it is used as a past tense of 
“shall.”

shall
SHal,SHəl/ verb modal verb: shall
1.   (in the first person) expressing the future tense. "this time next 
week I shall be in Scotland"
2.   expressing a strong assertion or intention. "they shall succeed"

Best regards,
-Ben Cheung, PhD, DMTS, ALTA
  ATF Architecture Systems Engineer
  Mobile Networks, Nokia
  Tel +1 (908) 679-6615
  Email  ben.che...@nokia.com
  600-700 Mountain Ave, Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA / #2C-378

From: Zu Qiang [mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 7:34 AM
To: WRIGHT, STEVEN A mailto:sw3...@att.com>>
Cc: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
mailto:ben.che...@nokia.com>>; 
'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' 
mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text

Hello, Steven
According to the vnf requirement section 3, “Requirements are 
identified as either MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, or MAY as defined in 
RFC 2119.” Unfortunately, RFC2119 is specified in last century. Do we have any 
plan to update that requirement by including “SHALL” as normative text in 
Casablanca?

Have a nice day
Zu Qiang

From: Cheung, Ben (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
mailto:ben.che...@nokia.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 1:42 PM
To: Zu Qiang mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com>>; WRIGHT, 
STEVEN A mailto:sw3...@att.com>>; 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' 
mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: RE: #vnfrqts PNP text

Qiang Zu,
· Is the requirements list in your comment the revised requirements 
only? You can move the proposed text into description section to avoid 
confusion.
· Please use the normative text "MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY" as requested in 
section 3
· [BEN] – I have rechecked my text … All of the requirements do have 
“Should”/“Shall”, or “May”. After 20 years of writing requirements that is a 
rare mistake for me to make. I have highlighted this in red text below (in this 
email thread).
·
· The reference to the 5G PnP wiki page must be removed. The 5G PnP 
wiki has too many non-normative text.
· [BEN] – I COMPLETELY disagree!!! The usefulness of a Wiki and 
hyperlinks is that a reader can find out related and other relevant information 
which I think is very appropriate and useful. That is why a Wiki is more useful 
than a traditional paper “static” dictionary or encyclopedia. This was the 
fundamental invention of HTTP (Hypertext), welcome to the 21st century.
·
· Any requirements beyond Casablanca release must be removed. If we 
believe the function will be implemented in Dublin, we can keep the 
requirements in a new Jira tickets in backlog.
· [BEN] – I can remove the one R4 requirement, [1300]
·
· We should keep the normative text only and remove all the explanation 
text in the notes. If anyone would like to have a better understanding on how 
the 5G PnP works, he/she should read the 5G PnP wiki page.
· [BEN] – I COMPLETELY disagree with this notion. If there is 
“non-normative” requirements text (text that is not “shall/should”, “must”, 
“may”), it shall belong to a note – this can help a reader understand why a 
requirement is structured or worded the way it is. Clarifying text or notes are 
a way for the author to convey vital background that might be needed to 
describe engineering decisions, and the logical through processes of the 
systems engineer.

I'll come back with some detail rewording proposals if we can have an agreement 
on the general part first.


Best regards,
-Ben Cheung, PhD, DMTS, ALTA
  ATF Architecture Systems Engineer
  Mobile Networks, Nokia
  Tel +1 (908) 679-6615
  Email  ben.che...@nokia.com
  600-700 Mountain Ave, Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA / #2C-378

From: Zu Qiang [mailto:zu.qi...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018