>>> MAY != SHOULD >> The text is as follows: "The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever >> possible". If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it >> would help if there is an explanation in the sentence for the reader >> weigh the implications of not following that. > My knee-jerk reaction is to use MUST. Partially-qualified domain names > are ambiguous at best. that is a separate issue > Similarly, "wherever possible" is unhelpful; if it's not possible to > fully-qualify a domain name then ambiguity is guaranteed. no, that is what SHOLD means. e.g. when i write docco that has an ops clause where there is likely a knob or other op choice, i do not think i have the prerogative to tell the op how they MUST run their network. but i can say that they SHOULD do x. randy