RE: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20 Requirem ents v5 -C802.20-03-6921
Marianna, I asm in full agreement with your guidelines for the use of
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, and MAY.
For ease in reading IEEE 802 Standards, it is recommended that the word MUST
not be used. Instead, the word SHALL clearly and unambiguously shows that a
requirement is specified. One of the reasons for adhering to this guideline
is that it simplifies the process of creating a PICS (Protocol
Implementation Conformance Specification). A first pass of the PICS is
normally generated by searching the draft for "SHALL" and including those
items in the PICS. For this reason, I would also recommend that the use of
the terms REQUIRED and REQUIREMENT be restricted to descriptive text that
is talking about a requirement but not intended to be a sentence that
specifies conformance requirements.
Best Regards,
Robert D. Love
rdlove@ieee.org
>From: Marianna Goldhammer <marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com>
>To: "'Joanne Wilson '" <joanne@arraycomm.com>, "'Klerer Mark '"
><M.Klerer@flarion.com>, "''Joseph Cleveland' '"
><JClevela@sta.samsung.com>, "'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org '"
><stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20 Requirem
>ents v5 - C802.20-03-6921
>Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:27:00 +0300
>
>
> Hi,
>
>This means to use the definitions provided by me in C802.20-03/67:
>
>"MUST" or "SHALL" These words or the adjective "REQUIRED" means that the
>item is an absolute requirement.
>"MUST NOT" This phrase means that the item is an absolute prohibition.
>"SHOULD" This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there may
>exist
>valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this item, but the full
>implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before
>choosing a different course.
> "SHOULD NOT" This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in
>particular circumstances when the listed behavior is acceptable or even
>useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case
>carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this
>label.
> "MAY" This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item is truly
>optional. One implementation may include the item because the target
>marketplace requires it or because it enhances the product, for example;
>another implementation may omit the same item.
>
>Marianna
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joanne Wilson
>To: Klerer Mark; 'Joseph Cleveland'; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
>Sent: 7/24/2003 12:08 AM
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20 Requirem
>ents v5 - C802.20-03-6921
>
>Hi!
>
>I support use of the IEEE style manual across the board. I believe that
>Bob Love provided a good explanation of how
>"will" should (shall?) be used based on the IEEE style manual. His
>comment was as follows:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
><mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org>
>[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>Robert Love
>Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:09 AM
>To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
><mailto:stds-80220-requirements@ieee.orgSubject> Subject:
>RE: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20
>Requirements v5 - C802.20-03-6921
>I am in general agreement with Joseph's recommendations for the use of
>"shall" and "should" which closely follow the style guide. I would
>advise
>that we attempt to limit the use of "will" for explanations that
>describe
>conditions that naturally follow from set conditions so there is no
>confusion over the possibility that we must be able to conformance test
>for
>the condition. An example of "will" being used according to this
>guideline
>is: "Loss of signal will result in dropped packets."
>Best regards.
>Robert D. Love
>rdlove@ieee.org <mailto:rdlove@ieee.org>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------
>Best regards,
>Joanne
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>Klerer Mark
>Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:51 PM
>To: 'Joseph Cleveland'; 'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org '
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20
>Requirem ents v5 - C802.20-03-6921
>
>
>Joseph,
>
>That is the right approach. The only question remaining is if we need a
>definition of "will" as proposed by Joanne.
>
>Mark Klerer
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Cleveland [mailto:JClevela@sta.samsung.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:10 PM
>To: 'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org '
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20
>Requirem ents v5 - C802.20-03-6921
>
>Hi All,
>Thanks to Vladimer Yanover the IEEE has a statement in the style
>manualSection 5, para 13.1, for use of shall, will, should, etc. I
>recommend that we use the IEEE statement, which I have copied below:
>"The word shall is used to indicate mandatory requirements strictly to
>be followed in order to conform to the standard and from which no
>deviation is permitted (shall equals is required to). The use of the
>word must is deprecated and shall not be used when stating mandatory
>requirements; must is used only to describe unavoidable situations. The
>use of the word will is deprecated and shall not be used when stating
>mandatory requirements; will is only used in statements of fact.
>The word should is used to indicate that among several possibilities one
>is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding
>others; or that a certain course of action is preferred but not
>necessarily required; or that (in the negative form) a certain course of
>action is deprecated but not prohibited (should equals is recommended
>that).
>The word may is used to indicate a course of action permissible within
>the limits of the standard (may equals is permitted).
>The word can is used for statements of possibility and capability,
>whether material, physical, or causal (can equals is able to)."
>Joseph Cleveland
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vladimir Yanover [ mailto:vladimir.yanover@alvarion.com
><mailto:vladimir.yanover@alvarion.com> ]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:36 PM
>To: 'Joanne Wilson '; 'Joseph Cleveland ';
>'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org '
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20
>Requirem ents v5 - C802.20-03-6921
>
>Hello,
>Here is a link that might be useful for the discussion
>http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/section5.html
><http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/section5.html>
>Vladimir
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joanne Wilson
>To: Joseph Cleveland; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
>Sent: 7/23/2003 1:01 AM
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20
>Requirements v5 - C802.20-03-6921
>Hi!
>I propose the following modification to Joseph's terminology:
>2a. "Should" expresses a provision that is recommended, but is not
>mandatory
>2b. "May" expresses a provision that is allowed, but is not mandatory
>Best regards,
>Joanne Wilson
>ArrayComm, Inc
>+1 202 669-4006 Direct
>+1 253 484-0330 Fax
>joanne@arraycomm.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
>[ mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
><mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org> ]On Behalf Of
>Joseph Cleveland
>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:00 PM
>To: 'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org'
>Subject: stds-80220-requirements: Shall-Will-Should in 802.20
>Requirements v5 - C802.20-03-6921
>
>Hi All:
>I recommend the following wording for "shall", "will", should", etc. for
>inclusion in 802.20 Requirements document:
>The following terminology identifies the designation of mandatory versus
>non-mandatory requirements:
>
>1. "shall" expresses a provision that is binding
>2. "should" and "may" expresses non-mandatory provisions
>3. "will" expresses a declaration of purpose. It may be necessary
>to use "will" in cases where the simple future tense is required
>
>Joseph Cleveland
>Director, Systems & Standards
>Wireless Systems Lab
>Samsung Telecommunications America
>Richardson, TX 75081
>(O) 972-761-7981 (M) 214-336-8446 (F) 972-761-7909
>
>This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>************************************************************************
>
>************
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
>computer viruses.
>************************************************************************
>
>************
>This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>************************************************************************
>************
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
>computer viruses.
>************************************************************************
>************
>
>
>This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>
>************************************************************************
>************
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
>computer viruses.
>************************************************************************
>************
>
>This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
>************************************************************************************
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
>viruses.
>************************************************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail