| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
In addition to numbering requirements, it would be usual to
categorize each one as M (Mandatory) or O (Optional).
See for example the
Appendix in 802.16a FRD http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/tg3/docs/802163-00_02r4.pdf
which is also typical of ETSI System Requirements etc.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of
Joanne Wilson
Sent: 19 August 2003 06:32
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
>
>
>
>
>