RE: stds-80220-requirements: numbering requirements
Joanne-
Once we assign a number, that number is never reused. Thus we have a list
of requirement numbers that are sequential. And the sequential list has
"holes" in it. By adopting this idea:
1- we can resurrect a "dead" requirement at any time.
2- presentations always makes sense.
But your comment raises an issue I did not address. Is the sequential number
unique for all requirements? For example, can we have a RA000001 and a
RP000001?
I propose that we cannot have a RA000001 and a RP000001. Its too confusing.
I also suggest we do NOT reserve numbers. For example, numbers 200-399 are
QOS. There are always problems when we get the 200th QOS requirement.
Robert-
Upper layer requirements should be written as any other requirement. By
definition the standard only addresses MAC/PHY. By using my suggested
numbering, we quickly see which requirements we must meet. So I believe we
do not need to keep saying "The standard shall support the requirements
placed on the MAC/PHY by Requirement X at layer Z". But we need to have a
statement at the front of the requirements document like "The standard shall
address the requirements with the <layer> letters 'M' and 'E'. Requirements
with other <layer> letters will be included in informational sections, to
help the reader understand the intent of the committee."
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:32 AM
To: Robert D. Love; Chickinsky, Alan; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: numbering requirements
Bob,
Alan,
I also agree with the proposal to have numbered requirements. So that
we don't complicate this project, I propose that the numbering of the
individual requirements be applied after we have finalized the document.
Otherwise, we could waste time numbering, re-numbering and re-re-numbering
requirements as the document gells.
Best regards,
Joanne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Robert D. Love
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 1:32 PM
To: Chickinsky, Alan; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: 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
>
>
>
>
>