What conforms to what is still labelled the RM? What does conformance to it
mean? Likewise for what's still called SAM? Where does conformance to one of
those say about conformance to what's currently out there as ISO/IEC 13250?
I just took a quick (< 10 minute!) skim through the RM and came away
wondering about conformance. I found lots of really important, valuable
information about TMs, but I also found myself wondering again whether this
is a standard or a technical report. Although much of the language is about
"must", which is standards-like, there is also "should" language, "may"
language, "may or may not" language, and discussion about what developers of
TMs need to think about, all of which sounds like a TR. Does this document
specify or interpret?

What conforms to what is still labelled the RM? What does conformance to it
mean? Likewise for what's still called SAM? Where does conformance to one of
those say about conformance to what's currently out there as ISO/IEC 13250?
I just took a quick (< 10 minute!) skim through the RM and came away
wondering about conformance. I found lots of really important, valuable
information about TMs, but I also found myself wondering again whether this
is a standard or a technical report. Although much of the language is about
"must", which is standards-like, there is also "should" language, "may"
language, "may or may not" language, and discussion about what developers of
TMs need to think about, all of which sounds like a TR. Does this document
specify or interpret?

What conforms to what is still labelled the RM? What does conformance to it
mean? Likewise for what's still called SAM? Where does conformance to one of
those say about conformance to what's currently out there as ISO/IEC 13250?
I just took a quick (< 10 minute!) skim through the RM and came away
wondering about conformance. I found lots of really important, valuable
information about TMs, but I also found myself wondering again whether this
is a standard or a technical report. Although much of the language is about
"must", which is standards-like, there is also "should" language, "may"
language, "may or may not" language, and discussion about what developers of
TMs need to think about, all of which sounds like a TR. Does this document
specify or interpret?

What conforms to what is still labelled the RM? What does conformance to it
mean? Likewise for what's still called SAM? Where does conformance to one of
those say about conformance to what's currently out there as ISO/IEC 13250?
I just took a quick (< 10 minute!) skim through the RM and came away
wondering about conformance. I found lots of really important, valuable
information about TMs, but I also found myself wondering again whether this
is a standard or a technical report. Although much of the language is about
"must", which is standards-like, there is also "should" language, "may"
language, "may or may not" language, and discussion about what developers of
TMs need to think about, all of which sounds like a TR. Does this document
specify or interpret?

What conforms to what is still labelled the RM? What does conformance to it
mean? Likewise for what's still called SAM? Where does conformance to one of
those say about conformance to what's currently out there as ISO/IEC 13250?
I just took a quick (< 10 minute!) skim through the RM and came away
wondering about conformance. I found lots of really important, valuable
information about TMs, but I also found myself wondering again whether this
is a standard or a technical report. Although much of the language is about
"must", which is standards-like, there is also "should" language, "may"
language, "may or may not" language, and discussion about what developers of
TMs need to think about, all of which sounds like a TR. Does this document
specify or interpret?

What conforms to what is still labelled the RM? What does conformance to it
mean? Likewise for what's still called SAM? Where does conformance to one of
those say about conformance to what's currently out there as ISO/IEC 13250?
I just took a quick (< 10 minute!) skim through the RM and came away
wondering about conformance. I found lots of really important, valuable
information about TMs, but I also found myself wondering again whether this
is a standard or a technical report. Although much of the language is about
"must", which is standards-like, there is also "should" language, "may"
language, "may or may not" language, and discussion about what developers of
TMs need to think about, all of which sounds like a TR. Does this document
specify or interpret?