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

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 a

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

+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

Re: [onap-discuss] #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 decis

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 -=-

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

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 RF

Re: [onap-discuss] #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 re

Re: [onap-discuss] #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

Re: [onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text

Hello, Steven The following is my comment on the Jira page which no response is received yet. hello, Benjamin Cheung, Thanks for updating the requirements text. I have some general comments here: * Is th

[onap-discuss] #vnfrqts PNP text

I wanted to followup on VNFRQTS-289 to see where the discussion is at. We've had a few comments, but I'm wondering if there is a consolidated proposal version likely to appear this week ? best regards Steven Wright, MBA, PhD, JD. [Tech Integration] AT&