BRS-I acting outside its own scope is a contradiction

[jhauser-us]

In Section 2.1, "BRS-I Recipe", we have this statement: "A key tenet of BRS-I is constraining behavior outside the scope of BRS-I." To me, that reads as an impossible contradiction, saying that recipe BRS-I acts outside the realm in which it may act.

[andreiw]

The intention is clarified in the following sentence - "Features violating the principle of least surprise and causing anomalous and unexpected behavior in a generic OS must be configured by firmware as opt-in."

So the purpose was to state BRS-I systems as being conservative with respect to behavior that is not covered by the spec.

Please suggest a good wording.

[avpatel]

I believe this is already taken care hence closing.

[jhauser-us]

The consensus of the Architecture Review Committee is that this sentence reads as self-contradictory: "A key tenet of BRS-I is constraining behavior outside the scope of BRS-I." Please find different words to convey what you really mean.

[vlsunil]

@jhauser-us :

"A key tenet of BRS-I is to ensure there is no unexpected behavior in a generic OS even when there are features implemented in the system beyond the scope of BRS-I."

Is it acceptable?

[kasanovic]

This is still contradictory. I believe the previous paragraph provides most of the intended mandate. I'd propose dropping the problematic paragraph, and instead adding a new final sentence on the previous paragraph that states: "Any additional firmware features that cause anomalous and unexpected behavior must be disabled by default, and only enabled by opt-in."

[vlsunil]

Sure. Thanks!