SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > At 17:03 01-02-10, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Ah, thank you. Changed to SHOULD on the assumption that the (pre-2119) >> language in RFC 1034 was intended to have roughly the same meaning. > "SHOULD" as a requirement first appeared in RFC 1122. It does not > necessarily apply to RFCs published before RFC 2119. I guess I'm not clear on what you think the correct fix is. I'm hesitant to use a lowercase "should" in a document that explicitly references RFC 2119, since then it's ambiguous what that is supposed to mean in terms of a standard requirement. -- Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf