see rfc 2418 page 3 as well as RFC 2434 page 3 for an example of non-protocol uses of 2119 terms fwiw - I have seen 2119 terms used in registration type RFCs for rather many years I think it is too late to unwind that clock Scott Scott Bradner Harvard University Information Technology Innovation & Architecture +1 617 495 3864 1350 Mass Ave., Room 760 Cambridge, MA 02138 www.harvard.edu/huit On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 2013-10-29 21:29, Bradner, Scott wrote: >> seems to me to be completely reasonable to say MUST include the number of the RFC that describes >> the protocol being registered (for example) >> >> Scott > > But then: > >> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives >> >> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care >> and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is >> actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has >> potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For >> example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method >> on implementors where the method is not required for >> interoperability. > > To me this indicates that we should keep them out of registrations procedures. > > (I also note that the "MUST" in the text I quoted shouldn't been used if the text followed its own advice :-). > > Best regards, Julian