Re: wording "strict conformance"

At 09:27 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, skall@nist.gov wrote:
>Quoting Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>:
>[...]
> > What about "...provide your own definition"?  Why do we say that?  What
> > is
> > an example/scenario where it would make sense?
>
>Almost none.  The only thing that we may have meant is that the definition
>talks about requirements in the specification as in "only requirements 
>defined
>in the specification".  If one was defining strict conformance for a level or
>a profile they would talk about "requirements in the level/profile" 
>instead of
>specification.

So what do you recommend:

* drop the sentence(s)

* qualify as you said -- specs might possibly narrowing *scope* of 
definition (or its applicability) to a module, profile, level etc

* other.

(I was wondering, as I read it, about this:  a spec maybe could have a 
stricter definition that tightens up ambiguities in our definition, like 
discretionary items, etc -- we had a previous discussion about the latter, 
inconclusive so far -- it will come back later, I think).

-Lofton.d