...
The fact is that we have extensive precedents for the use of "RFC 2119 language", or at least uses of the words for which RFC 2119 offers a definition, in administrative and procedural documents. We can stop doing that, but it seems to me that making elimination of that usage into a hard requirement requires community consensus, not just posting of an I-D.
Completely agree. But I stick to my comment, and to the fact that it's editorial. I have no objection to the MUSTs in the outgoing draft but citing 2119 to justify them seems wrong to me. In fact, I don't see what the document would lose if they were in lower case.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg