>> That such a rule differs from natural English -- which does not typically >> alter semantics based on case -- and that most readers of RFCs will not have >> such detailed knowledge of RFC2119 nor read RFCs with the care such a rule >> demands, my question BARRY and adam and EveryOne Else, is what makes anyone >> think that such a rule must (MUST?) ensure proper reading of RFCs so as to >> distinguish between normative portions and advisory portions? > > Sorry, I think that's nonsense. RFC 2119 and its capitalized keywords are > well known to anyone reading any specifications, these days. I think we can > actually assume a priori knowledge of RFC 2119, for the most part. What I > think would be far more surprising is this notion that the keywords, noted > and referenced in capitals, also have the same precise meaning and force > when written normally. I agree with the first and third sentences of what Dave Cridland said, but I think we have to be a little careful about the second. What I think we can assume is an a priori knowledge of some of what 2119 says: that there are these capitalized key words that have special meanings. But it's quite clear from reviewing a lot of documents (one of the fun things one gets to do as AD) that many writers do not know how 2119 actually defines those. I see significant misunderstandings about "SHOULD" and "MAY" all the time, examples of which I can give you if you like. And one of my favourites is when someone used "RECOMMENDED", I questioned it in a comment, and the response was, "Yes, maybe we should switch that to 'SHOULD'." As a complete side thing, I wonder how this all seems to German-speakers, as German uses initial caps for all nouns. I wonder if anyone even notices if someone fails to do that. I wonder if it becomes puzzling, perhaps in some instances. Barry