Requirements Comments

• From: Yassir Elley <yassir.elley@sun.com>
• Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:44:41 -0500
• To: www-xkms@w3.org
• Message-ID: <3C6C13A9.C2FA4899@sun.com>

I understand what "SHOULD" means in the context of applications that claim
conformance to XKMS in that we are recommending a certain behavior,
but what does SHOULD mean when applied to the specification itself? Does this mean
that those items aren't really requirements on the spec but they would be nice to have?

For example, 2.1.8 states
"The specification SHOULD clearly define the set of responses ..."
It seems strange to include this as a requirement and then say that it
it is only a SHOULD. (In other words, it is not really a requirement)

This use of SHOULD and SHOULD NOT as applied to the spec occurs in several other
places as well. I would suggest they be replaced by MUST and MUST NOT.

Some minor typos:
2.1.7
Replace "client," with "clients"
"Usability and simplicity are paramount to enable client, to obtain ..."

2.2.3
The second sentence is a fragment
"In particular, the specification MUST define how the use of transport layer security such
as SSL/TLS."

2.5.4
Replace "PX509" with "X509"
"...if the service claims interoperability with PX509."

-Yassir.

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 16:40:03 UTC