On 30/03/2016 05:36, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 29 March 2016 at 16:26, HANSEN, TONY L <tony@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I also feel that a modified version of the RFC 2119 statement should be
>> defined and specified in a small RFC.
>>
>> I like Dave's addition, but also think adding the word "only" is worth
>> doing:
>>
>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
>> NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>> "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
>> RFC 2119 only when capitalised.
>>
>> Leaving out the "only" still leaves the statement (slightly) ambiguous;
>> it's the same as the difference between "if" and "if and only if".
>>
>>
> I agree that's an improvement.
I think it's a significant improvement, despite my other comments. However,
we should also insert "NOT RECOMMENDED" (see the erratum #499 on 2119).
Brian