Subject: [issue67] TML requirements vagueness

From: David Putzolu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:23:55 +0000

New submission from David Putzolu <[email-masked]>:

> 3.1.2 The TML Layer
> * s/layer is essentially responsible for transport of/layer transports/
> ** There is a "should" in here ("All ForCES Protocol Layer
> implementations
>   should be portable across all TMLs").  From the context, it feels like
>   Is should be a MUST. Which is it?  If it is only a SHOULD, explain
> why.

[Jamal responded]
Well, if we are going to define the service primitives then its a MUST;
else it is a SHOULD.

----------
category: Editorial
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 367
nosy: dputzolu
priority: Should fix
status: Need clarifying text
title: TML requirements vagueness

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue67>
___________________________________________________