RE: For consideration of specification authors

Oops… Was totally oblivious to the date.  That said, I still prefer the ISO/IEC guide.

G

 

From: Michael Pizzo [mailto:]

Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2017 12:37 PM

To: Ericson, George <>; Handl, Ralf <>; 

Subject: RE: For consideration of specification authors

 

I find the new keywords very useful in describing many of the conformance requirements in our documents and have applied them appropriately.

 

 

From:
 [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Ericson, George

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 7:21 AM

To: Handl, Ralf <>;


Subject: [odata] RE: For consideration of specification authors

 

The proposed additional flexibility doesn’t seem helpful with respect to promoting interoperability. 

 

In my experience, specifications are well served by following:
ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, Principles and rules for the structure and drafting of ISO and IEC documents.

 

I recommend converting to the use of the terms: should, shall not, should, should not, may, may not, can, cannot, and must as specified in clause 7 of the ISO/IEC
 Directives, Part 2.

 

Regards,

George

 

From:
 [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Handl, Ralf

Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 6:55 AM

To: 

Subject: [odata] For consideration of specification authors

 

Specification authors should have a look at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919  when reworking the V4.01 specifications. Some of these new normative keywords might come in handy.

 

Cheers!

Ralf

 

        In preparing for battle

        I have always found that plans are useless,

        but planning is indispensable.

        - Dwight D. Eisenhower