[saga-rg] requirements from the requirements document

[Andre Merzky]

Hi Thilo, 

Quoting [Thilo Kielmann] (Apr 27 2006):
> 
> Hi group,
> 
> currently I am trying to distill a concise set of requirements from the
> requirements doc (draft) into the introduction of the API spec...
> 
> What puzzles me is the terminology used in the requirements document.
> (And here I am referring solely to the bullet points with actual requirements.)
> 
> We have 1 x "must be supported"
> a lot of times "should be supported"
> and "...messages on top of streaming... should be CONSIDERED..."
> and many versions of saying that something should NOT be considered...
> 
> This all does not really match what the (strawman) API includes and excludes.

True.  This showes the need of the req-document.  The
strawman is quit off-target in some respect.

OTOH, there are reasons why we started with the strawman
scope as we have it now.  We should explain these reasons in
the spec intro.


> I am afraid we need to get the requirements doc straight first...

Ah, I think not.  Wording might need fixing, agree - but I
think that the fact that the API is off target in respect to
the requirements needs fixing in the API, not in the
requirements...

> Do we need to refer to the (un)famous RFC that explains the meaning of "must"
> and "should" etc. to make the requirements stricter???

That would probably be a good idea...

Cheers, Andre.



> I am pretty sure this is all just a 'presentation' issue, but currently
> things are pretty fuzzy to me.
> 
> Any good suggestion?
> 
> 
> Thilo
-- 
"So much time, so little to do..."  -- Garfield