Review for unnecessary normative statements [TAG feedback]

[rhiaro]

Some normative statements appear to provide context/background/similar rather than strictly describe normative requirements - eg. in 8.1.2 Links, that "Things MUST be hosted on networked system components [..]". Apologies if this has been misunderstood, but this seems more of a foundational premise than a feature to test for conformance purposes.

Suggest reviewing for such statements and rephrasing/moving/removing as appropriate.

(From w3ctag/design-reviews#736)

[mlagally]

Arch call on Sept 1st:
We will review all assertions and identify those that are not testable features as part of the implementation report work.
These assertions will be converted to regular text.

[mlagally]

Arch call on Sept 8th:
Several normative statements have been weakened from "MUST" to "SHOULD", specifically in the security section. Some redundant assertions have been removed in security.

Group-wide review will be performed when the contributions from implementors for the implementation report will be available.
We are collecting testing input and will check, which assertions need to be clarified and which are at risk.

[mlagally]

Arch call on Oct 13th:
Reviewed at risk assertions in the implementation report:
https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/testing/report11.html

Review has been done, there are ~20 at risk items in S&P section, 2 are in the remainder of the document.

For CR publication we have to update the "at risk list" to call out the sections and at risk items.
Add text to the S&P section via issue #854:
"Several assertions, marked in yellow in this section are at risk. If insufficient testing results have been obtained by PR transitions, these will be converted to informative text."