Please vote Yes if you agree with all of the following.
If you disagree, please vote No.
If you don't have an opinion, please vote Abstain.
I move that:
The TC agrees to defer resolving the following specification issue:
VIRTIO-165: wording i conformance clause should clarify the status of SHOULD normative statements
--------------------------------------
Each conformance clause sub-section starts with something that looks like a mandatory requirement:
e.g.:
"A network device MUST conform to the following normative statements:"
But many of the following statements are optional (SHOULD) in the specification body. So it is then confusing to say "... MUST conform to a SHOULD statement...."
That is why it is NOT recommended to use normative language like MUST (and even less SHOULD) in a conformance clause. A conf clause is not there to tell you what to do or not do (MUST....), but only to state under which conditions you can claim conformance to XYZ.
It is better to say:
"an implementation that satisfies all mandatory (MUST) requirements in 5.1.4.1, 5.1.6.2.... qualifies (or may claim conformance) as a VIRTIO1.1 network device"
Or in some conformance profiles, you can override a SHOULD in the spec body and make it mandatory.
--------------------------------------
The TC agrees that the issue will not be resolved for the revision
"virtio-v1.1-cs01" of the specification.
Justification:
--------------------------------------
I do not believe there is any confusion in practice. If there were this would
make it a material change and we do not want that.
--------------------------------------
Reminder: A Voting Member must be active in a TC to maintain voting rights. As
the Virtio TC has adopted a standing rule to conduct business only by
electronic ballot, without Meetings, a Voting Member who fails to cast a ballot
in two consecutive Work Product Ballots loses his or her voting rights at the
close of the second ballot missed.
-------------------------------------- |
