This point is worded ambiguously and, in general, seems to go beyond the scope of what OCI can ask of a wallet provider. The decision to support further use cases is, in the end, a business decision of the wallet provider. They may want to specialize or develop a broad offering. OCI should only be concerned with the wallet's compliance with technical and governance criteria as applicable for each use case.
I suggest to remove this NFR altogether.
If it was to remain in place, I suggest to remove the ambiguity.
wording ambiguity: must vs SHOULD
Description
The solution must be able to support additional use cases for authorized trading partner verification, including the exchange of additional enterprise compliance credentials.
Conformance Criteria
The solution SHOULD be flexible and customizable [...]
bluesteens
commented
1 year ago
This point is worded ambiguously and, in general, seems to go beyond the scope of what OCI can ask of a wallet provider. The decision to support further use cases is, in the end, a business decision of the wallet provider. They may want to specialize or develop a broad offering. OCI should only be concerned with the wallet's compliance with technical and governance criteria as applicable for each use case.
I suggest to remove this NFR altogether. If it was to remain in place, I suggest to remove the ambiguity.
wording ambiguity: must vs SHOULD Description
Conformance Criteria