Re-factor FMI Standard text considering RFC 2119 before release

[chrbertsch]

Once the Pull requests have been merged, the complete text shall be re-factored using the wording of RFC 2119, see #581

[martinrosingetas]

Hello @chrbertsch @t-sommer , this task seems to be pending. What is its current state?

[chrbertsch]

Hello @chrbertsch @t-sommer , this task seems to be pending. What is its current state?

As there are still major text changes and extension to be done, i think this rework should be done at a later point of time.

[martinrosingetas]

The current text contains several requirements that are written using "will" or "can". These words/phrases aren't defined in RFC2119.

I suspect that a refactoring of the text may lead to some subsequent discussions about the appropriate strictness level of those requirements.

I think that refactoring the existing text early offers several benefits:

• Discussions about ambiguous strictness levels of requirements take place early.
• If a future PR uses terms that are undefined in RFC2119, we will fix those issues during the discussion of the PR - and not many months later in a general refactoring.

A final check against RFC2119 before publication is needed anyway.

[chrbertsch]

Ticket-view-meeting

Andreas: can be done at the very end. Language checking by a native speaker this could be screwed up.
Torsten: Should be done at the write-fest
Klaus: in SSP it is written in upper-case to make people aware
Torsten: this looks strange
Klaus: Italic looks better
Andreas: Italic is used for non-normative.
Andreas: Underline could work. There are two tasks:

1. Re-formulating the whole text using the text
2. Re-formatting with search-and-replace (easy and can be done at the end)

[andreas-junghanns]

This needs to stay open as a reminder until we release.

[chrbertsch]

Regular Design Meeting:

Andreas: I could do it, but could you @pmai help me, as I have no experience?
TorstenS: Is this also about the formatting? I do not like the upper-case bold, as this is not so well readable
Andreas: we should e.g. replace "should"
Pierre: this formatting makes clear, where you want the clearly defined wording?
TorstenS: we could just replace any wrong wording
Pierre:: Experience tells this is hard enough
TorstenS: Could we perhaps first list examples where the problems are?
Andreas: Shall "should" be in the non-normative text?
Pierre: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119 gives a meaning to "should"
Pierre: we should go through a section of the standard and mark unclear usage of verbs. This makes sense anyway. Readabbility makes sense also.
Claudio: we could start with the common concepts
Andreas: We first need an educational phase. This can be done in parallel to protyping.
Pierre: I will pick a section and show it.

[chrbertsch]

Webmeeting:
Pierre: If we want to do this, we should start this now.
Torsten: with the refactored text this SHOULD be possible.
Pierre: this could done step by step. We could start with a subsection. We should note on which sections we have done this already. I would volunteer to review it, if someone else starts.

[andreas-junghanns]

Web-design meeting:
TorstenS: we should not refactor to have all upper-case/bold, just mention it in 1.4.