[RA2 Ch2] Wording to deal with requirements that are optional at deployment time.

[tomkivlin]

Resolves #1048

[tomkivlin]

@fkautz are you happy with this wording? If so could you approve please? If so, I think it'll mean we can close #1014.

[hdamker]

Just the question if we shouldn't be more explicit about the optional deployment. Is it a must requirement that the operator can choose within a deployment to deploy or not deploy persistent storage. Or may the reference/vendor implementation allow this option?

I'm in favor of a second, explicit requirement with either may or must for deployment choice. The implicit meaning of "optional for deployment" leaves too many interpretations.

[tomkivlin]

Just the question if we shouldn't be more explicit about the optional deployment. Is it a must requirement that the operator can choose within a deployment to deploy or not deploy persistent storage. Or may the reference/vendor implementation allow this option?

So definitely not "may the reference/vendor implementation allow this option". RI/VI must include it so they can be tested.

The RI/VI are a kind of solution blueprint, not individual solution deployments. It is these solution deployments where an operator might choose to use the capability or not, depending on their requirements for that specific deployment.

I'm in favor of a second, explicit requirement with either may or must for deployment choice. The implicit meaning of "optional for deployment" leaves too many interpretations.

What I'm trying to avoid is having requirements in the RA, which aren't about the RA. More than happy to consider re-wording what we've got here, but want to keep the requirements we list in this doc to be about what this doc is delivering (i.e. the architecture spec).

[rabiabdel]

@hdamker please review to get this approved/merged. this will merged within 48 hours if no concern received.

[rabiabdel]

Will approve this and merge it tomorrow if no further feedback received by EOT

[hdamker]

Will approve this and merge it tomorrow if no further feedback received by EOT

@rabiabdel my proposed changes are positively discussed but not yet done within. @tomkivlin: will you do them? It's your PR.

[tomkivlin]

Will approve this and merge it tomorrow if no further feedback received by EOT

@rabiabdel my proposed changes are positively discussed but not yet done within. @tomkivlin: will you do them? It's your PR.

Yes, it's on my list to make the change tomorrow morning.