Hi Joe,
We *never* use lowercase must or should or required (so no ambiguity).
Instead use the following construction in Design Requirements section:
The [xyz] design requirements are:
1) Define something...
2) Following the naming conventions...
3) etc.
OK?
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Murdock, Joe <jmurdock at sharplabs.com> wrote:
> Ira,****
>> ** **
>> Did we agree to remove the use of the uppercase conformance terminology in
> the requirements sections of the Attribute and NEA specs (i.e. change
> “MUST” to “must” or “is required to”)?****
>> ** **
>> Joe****
>> ** **
>> ---------------------------------------****
>> Joe Murdock****
>> Principal Engineer and Researcher****
>> Chair IEEE/ISTO Printer Working Group Imaging Device Security****
>> Sharp Labs of America****
>> 5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd****
>> Camas, WA 98607****
>> (360) 817-7542****
>>jmurdock at sharplabs.com****
>> ** **
>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ids/attachments/20130209/34edbb8b/attachment-0001.html>