> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:45 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Minimum Implementation Requirements (Was: 2119bis) > > Can anybody point to an incident in which lack of clarity around > 2119 language caused problems, and it was determined that 2119 > itself was the problem and not authors or editors being careless? +1. As we've defined SHOULD and MUST in RFC2119, they lay out conformance requirements. I still don't see what's broken. If the "Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST?" question that Spencer pointed out is a common one, then guidance to authors might be an appropriate addition. But I don't think the definitions as they currently stand are at all ambiguous. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf