Updated Requirements Mapping Document - Please Review

Team,

Attached please find an updated version of our Requirements Mapping
document. If anyone has a chance, it would be great for us to take a
step back for a moment and review requirements [S1] to [S18] (inclusive
- please ignore [S19]-on for now). Feedback on these at this point will
be valuable, so that we don't get too far down the road and find out we
were on the wrong path for something.

Some things to note please:

(1) In many places, I've listed "We consider this requirement to be ..."
(middle column). These are places in which we have decided to handle a
certain aspect of the CCTS differently for the registry implementation -
for example, the fact that we are (currently) not treating Properties as
entities. So I've reworded the requirement to fit our current handling,
to make it easier for us.

(2) In many places, I've also listed "This requirement can be ignored
for our purposes" (right column). These are places where - for example -
the handling of Properties is referenced, and there is nothing in the
particular requirement that we can implement in our registry
architecture per our current handling of Properties. This should whittle
down our requirements considerably.

(3) In the middle column, I've also listed "We consider this requirement
to be the same as our interpretation of [XX], but from an inverse
perspective" in multiple places. These are places in which a requirment
states (paraphrasing for simplicity) "A BCC is contained within an ACC",
and then another requirement says "An ACC contains one or more BCCs".
I've marked the second occurrence of each of these as "This requirement
can be ignored for our purposes", since we've covered it on the first
occurrence.

Thanks in advance for your feedback!

Joe