> one minor tweak A fine tweak. I'll write it up and pass it to a few people before I post the I-D. I'd rather do it as an update to 2119, rather than a complete revision, even though 2119 is so short, for two reasons: 1. I don't want to get into arguments about other changes. 2. I don't want to make 2119 obsolete: there's value in continuing to refer to it with that RFC number. Barry >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> The wishy washy descriptive rather than proscriptive language in the abstract was because I, >>> the IESG and the community were not of one mind to say that the use of such capitalized >>> terms should be mandatory - quite a few people felt that the english language was at >>> least good enough to convey the writer’s intent without having to aggrandize specific words. >>> Thus the abstract basically was saying: if you want to use capitalized words here is a standard >>> way to say what they mean >> >> Ah. Then perhaps the clarification needs to go a little further and >> make this clear: >> - We're defining specific terms that specifications can use. >> - These terms are always capitalized when these definitions are used. > > these definitions are only meaningful if the words are capitalized > >> - You don't have to use them. If you do, they're capitalized and >> their meanings are as specified here. >> - There are similar-looking English words that are not capitalized, >> and they have their normal English meanings; this document has nothing >> to do with them. >> >> ...and I'd like to add one more, because so many people think that >> text isn't normative unless it has 2119 key words in all caps in it: >> >> - Normative text doesn't require the use of these key words. They're >> used for clarity and consistency when you want that, but lots of >> normative text doesn't need to use them, and doesn't use them. >> >> Barry >