The Boot and Runtime Services (BRS) specification provides the software requirements for system vendors and Operating System Vendors (OSVs) to interoperate with one another by providing expectations for the Operating System (OS) to utilize in acts of device discovery, system management, and other rich operations provided in this specification.
The BRS draft contains many labeled "requirements" that are actually only recommendations. Multiple members of the Architecture Review Committee felt that "non-required requirement" is a contradiction.
The ARC acknowledges that the plural word requirements is often used generically to cover the specification of both required and optional features, as in the term requirements document. Individually, however, in ordinary English, a requirement is something that is required. It seems strange that so many so-called requirements (UEFI_040, UEFI_050, USEC_010, UIO_020, etc.) are non-required recommendations ("SHOULD"), or less ("MAY").
The ARC members who were bothered by this seeming contradiction would prefer a more neutral word. My own suggestion is to rename all the labeled reqirements as rules, resulting in Rule SBI_010, Rule UEFI_040, etc. Among other edits, this implies that many tables change their headings from Requirement to Rule. Rule ACPI_020 would need the addition of a word like MUST to clarify that it is in fact a requirement.
Instances of the plural requirements may or may not need to be changed to rules, depending on the specific uses.
If you prefer a different neutral word instead of rule, that may be equally acceptable.
The BRS draft contains many labeled "requirements" that are actually only recommendations. Multiple members of the Architecture Review Committee felt that "non-required requirement" is a contradiction.
The ARC acknowledges that the plural word requirements is often used generically to cover the specification of both required and optional features, as in the term requirements document. Individually, however, in ordinary English, a requirement is something that is required. It seems strange that so many so-called requirements (UEFI_040, UEFI_050, USEC_010, UIO_020, etc.) are non-required recommendations ("SHOULD"), or less ("MAY").
The ARC members who were bothered by this seeming contradiction would prefer a more neutral word. My own suggestion is to rename all the labeled reqirements as rules, resulting in Rule SBI_010, Rule UEFI_040, etc. Among other edits, this implies that many tables change their headings from Requirement to Rule. Rule ACPI_020 would need the addition of a word like MUST to clarify that it is in fact a requirement.
Instances of the plural requirements may or may not need to be changed to rules, depending on the specific uses.
If you prefer a different neutral word instead of rule, that may be equally acceptable.