[cgl_discussion] Words in requirements
Gustafson, Geoffrey R
geoffrey.r.gustafson at intel.com
Mon Sep 30 19:13:49 PDT 2002
Another twist might be to define in the beginning of the document what we
mean by 'Distribution', for example: Throughout this document, the term
<i>Distribution</i> will be used to mean a Linux distribution implementing
[attempting to meet, based on, compliant with...] this OSDL CGL Requirements
Then for the rest of the document, we can simply say:
A [or The] Distribution shall provide ...
The capital 'D' helps indicate we're talking about a special defined term.
Not to spark unnecessary combat, but I think "compliance" is drastically
different from the scary term "certification". After all, we're knee deep in
the scary term "requirement" -- if something is "required", I think it
implies an implementation has to aim at "compliance". But if we can agree on
a substitute, fine with me.
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
From: Peter Badovinatz [mailto:tabmowzo at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:34 PM
To: OSD CGL Reqts; OSDL CGL Discussion
Subject: [cgl_discussion] Words in requirements
Issue, as described in the minutes to today's requirements call:
1)Each requirement says "OSDL CGL shall provide [or develop, etc]..."
Key is that this implies that we will provide the function, not that we
will provide specifications of what the function should be. Circles
back onto the issue that OSDL CGL is not a distro, but that we provide
guidance to those wishing to be distros. The POC code is not intended
to be the end-all, our specs are.
That said, as an example, we have (picking 6.1.1, roll of the dice):
"OSDL CGL shall provide the capability of configuring the scheduler to
provide soft real time support so that the real time scheduling latency
of a given task will not exceed a target offered by the vendor."
Common point all over the document is the "OSDL CGL shall provide..."
Really, WE aren't providing anything. We have a reference
implementation, that will try to demonstrate that (most of) our
requirements aren't unreasonable, and may even provide actual code for
Linux distributors to use to meet some of the requirements when they
ship releases that fulfill our requirements.
We do plan to provide a certification suite as well so that the
distributors can show they've met our specifications.
Some textual suggestions for the problematic clause:
"An OSDL CGL-compliant distribution..."
"The OSDL CGL reference implementation..."
"OSDL CGL implementations shall provide..."
"Implementations of OSDL CGL shall provide..."
"OSDL CGL specifies that carrier grade Linux shall provide..."
Geoff Gustafson triggered this, and provided the first two ideas. It
has been (strongly) suggested that we avoid the use of 'compliance'
and/or 'certification' in the Requirements doc. The second suggestion
ties us too much to the reference implementation, but there is no
requirement that a Requirement be met by using the same code that's in
the reference implementation. The rest are mine to try and work around
these. To say I'm underwhelmed by my creativity would be the
Decision is mine to put forward, assuming we have something that
achieves some sort of consensus. Now that I'm sensitive to the current
wording, I do not like it, but it may be the lesser of various evils if
we don't have something succinct but useful. I do like Geoff's first
suggestion, but that does highlight the compliance/certification issue
too clearly I think.
Post or send me ideas, preferences, etc. If I don't get any, I'll take
my suggestion up with our roadmap coordinator for a command decision.
Peter R. Badovinatz aka 'Wombat' -- IBM Linux Technology Center
preferred: tabmowzo at us.ibm.com / alternate: wombat at us.ibm.com
These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of IBM, Corp.
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion