Keith Moore writes: [ RFC 2119 section 6 ] > only applies to documents that cite RFC 2119 for definitions of those terms. That's exactly what axfr-clarify does in section 1: ``The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].'' The author will, presumably, try to weasel out of RFC 2119 section 6 by dropping the reference to RFC 2119. Why is this tolerated? Why would any legitimate standards organization _want_ to violate the basic principles stated in RFC 2119? The IETF shouldn't be sticking its nose into private implementation decisions that don't cause interoperability problems. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago