Page Comparison

...

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8174

Model of GovStack CFR next version was being discussed

Proposed categories of requirements:

development, deployment, architecture, quality, security, data

REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, DRAFT, DEPRECATED

required, expected, recommended, draft, deprecated

Proposed levels of requirements:

required (100% requirement exptected from all software solutions)
recommended (percentage of compliance is used as a metric, but 0% is accepted)
draft (level of work in progress requirements)
deprecated (requirements may switch levels between published versions)

Proposed extensability values:

protected (cannot be extended by a feature building block specs)
open (can be extended, replaced, even deprecated or made required by feature building block spec)

Proposed versioning standard:

major.minor.fix (1.0.0 etc.)

It was agreed that requirements version releases will be published as a set, individual versions of each requirement are not being tracked.

Proposed XML format for requirements:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="cfr.xsl"?>
<cross-functional-requirements>requirements version="1.0.0">
	<requirement>
		<category>development</category>
		<en><language code="en"> 
			<rule>This is a requirement</rule>
			<additional>
				...
			</additional>
		</en>language>
		<level>REQUIRED</level>
		<extension??>??</extension><extensability>protected/open/etc</extensability>
		<reference>1</reference>
	</requirement>
	<requirement>
		...
	<requirement>
	...
</cross-functional-requirements>

...

https://govstack.gitbook.io/implementation-playbook/govstack-implementation-playbook/3-terminology

Other issues raisedTerminology to be gathered and created during the update of cross-cutting requirements.