--On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 08:58 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> The other words (must, shall, required, not) mean what they
> always mean. The only argument for upper-casing them is
> aesthetic symmetry. If a spec uses alternatives like
> mandatory, necessary or forbidden, they are just as powerful.
>...
Actually, when 2119 is referenced, Section 6 attaches particular
interoperability semantics to MUST, SHALL, etc., that are not
part of the plain-English meaning of those words. Section 6
seems to be ignored most of the time but cited when it supports
an axe someone wants to grind about use of conformance language.
john