Re: stds-80220-requirements: numbering requirements
Alan, excellent idea. I certainly hope we can get consensus on this
quickly.
Since we do not standardize what happens above the MAC layer, I assume that
upper layer requirements would be written in the form:
"The standard shall support the requirements placed on the MAC/PHY by
Requirement X at layer Z", where Z is higher than layer 2.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chickinsky, Alan" <alan.chickinsky@ngc.com>
To: <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:04 AM
Subject: stds-80220-requirements: numbering requirements
>
> folk,
>
> Now that we have a requirement document that has some closure, I would
like
> to suggest that we start to number each requirement. The numbering will
> allow us to determine that a requirement has a evaluation criteria and a
> criteria maps back to a requirement. It will later be a shorthand for a
> discussion on what goes into the standard. Just think if we have to say,
> "The requirement on page 11, line 15-16 in version 9 of the requirement
> document". But we could say "Requirement R0002". Also anyone who has
> worked requirement traceability tools know each requirement needs a unique
> identifier.
>
> I suggest we number each requirement as
>
> <R> <layer> <sequential number>
> or
> <G> <layer> <sequential number>
>
> Where:
>
> <R> is a measurable requirement
> <G> is a goal (not measurable requirement) e.g. "shall have a functional
> user interface"
>
> The following letters should be used for <layer>
>
> <A> Application
> <P> Presentation
> <S> Session
> <T> Transport
> <N> Network
> <L> Link Layer Control
> <M> Media Access Control
> <E> Physical Layer ( we already have a "P", so E for electronics)
>
> <sequential number> is a 6 digit number, with zero padding (leading
> positions), e.g. 000001
>
> We also need to create a table showing a requirement and it's derived
> requirement(s). For example we say we need call blocking and the derived
> requirement is a QOS requirement.
>
> Before I show this proposal to the evaluation criteria folk, I think we
need
> an agreement in the requirements group.
>
> Hopefully we can agree on the idea of numbering, and then the format of
the
> numbering all by e-mail. This is too basic an idea to waste a meeting.
>
> a. chickinsky
>
>
>
>
>