> So as I understand it, documents which adhere to rfc2119-update will
> cite BCP14 and the RFCXXXX which this document will have?
> or will it cite RFC2119 and RFCXXXX?
>
> Are you suggesting that we should be citing BCP14 though?
Is there really something unclear about the boilerplate update in Section 2?:
Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase
near the beginning of their document:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and
"MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119],[RFCxxxx] when, and only when, they appear
capitalized, as shown.
That is suggesting that we *call* this "BCP 14", and that the
citations be to RFC 2119 and to this document. That makes it clear
that 2119 applies, as updated by this.
> It seems that retaining section 1.1 might be worth it.
Perhaps, though I don't think it really has archival value. Do others
think it should be retained?
> XML format and screen readers.
>
> I have not looked deeply into the final RFC-format XML spec.
> Does it already markup SHOULD/MUST/MAY in some useful way?
> Could it? If it does, should this document point out this?
That's a good point, and I will look into what this might need to say
with respect to the XML markup.
Barry