Mykyta says... > I personally use SHALL when > I mean "it is to be so" and not strict "it is mandatory and obligatory and > compulsory and <...> to be so". But, see, this is exactly the sort of problem we're talking about. You make some sort of semantic (not just stylistic) distinction between MUST and SHALL. Yet RFC 2119 does not; it defines them as synonyms. In a document that uses these terms according to RFC 2119, they mean exactly the same thing, and they are interchangeable. Barry _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf