> I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is pointless, > as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding > that it's clarifying. It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need. Please note that "IF THEN" is reducing the number of words in the draft as well (more efficient). Please tell me what specification can specify a conditional situation in less words than "IF, THEN". Many RFC don't follow the easy way properly, > Further, it's actively *harmful*. I implemented some RFC that don't specify "if, then", and it was harmful for me. I don't know what kind of harmful that the update will make, please explain by an example. Do you mean harmful to the reviewers or to the draft authors. Please note that we should make the internet a better place for ALL not only for authors. > It's arguable > that 2119 already reserves too many words by giving them specific, > normative meanings (SHALL *and* MUST; SHOULD *and* RECOMMENDED). Adding > IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be unnecessary, but downright *bad*. > It is necessary, and the words in RFC2119 are not many if we compare with our RFCs pages. I thank you for your comments, AB