Description
Proposals for PR comments 7,8,18,20:
------------- proposal for comment #7) ------------
(see diffs in draft, section "Conformance")
- Normative keywords: the TC believes these are unnecessary to express conformance clauses, as extensively illustrated in the "conformance clauses" guidelines approved by the TAB. There is no need to indicate normativeness inside conformance clauses: these define the very conditions for an implementation to conform.
- references to normative content: a few were missing (fixed).
- replaced the informal prose (""follows"" --> ""is valid according to"", ""capable of"" --> ""can"")."
------------- proposal for comment #8) ------------
(see diffs in draft, section "implementations")
- added some more precise references for the "service template" implementation.
- removed some YAML repetitions, but retained the TOSCA qualifier.
- the TC finds otherwise the definition of these implementation types precise enough.
------------- proposal for comment #18) ------------
(see diffs in draft, at beginning of several sections that contain examples)
- at the beginning of most sections, stated that "examples" are non-normative.
------------- proposal for comment #20) ------------
- replace "normative node type" and other similar TOSCA-specific use of "normative", by "core" or "reserved". E.g. "core node type", or "reserved node type".
