Hi Christer. I've been on vacation. I think there was a miscommunication. I meant to say there's value to have explicit marking and language to describe the requirement and its priority. Otherwise, it may be confusing to have text with "shall" when the priority level is LOW. So I prefer to keep the language as is which would be consistent with the priority marking. But I'm definitely willing to ask the WG members for their feedback as well to resolve this. Or other authors can chime in?
Kent From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 12:14 AM To: Kent Leung (kleung); gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-requirements....@tools.ietf.org Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12 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:kle...@cisco.com] Sent: 20. marraskuuta 2013 2:30 To: Christer Holmberg; gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:gen-art@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-requirements....@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-cdni-requirements....@tools.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12 OK. Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate your feedback. :) Kent From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 11:58 PM To: Kent Leung (kleung); gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:gen-art@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-requirements....@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-cdni-requirements....@tools.ietf.org> 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:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 5:54 AM To: gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:gen-art@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-requirements....@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-cdni-requirements....@tools.ietf.org> 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 Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
