I don't think this document should be deprecating anything, but I think a strong recommendation not to use SHALL would be entirely in order.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10 Aug 2016, at 11:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
It's ironic, I think, that the active voice clause, "Authors who follow these
guidelines should incorporate this phrase" uses an uncapitalized "should,"
and I think it should be a "MUST."
There's no irony here: this document intentionally does not use BCP 14
key words, neither does 2119, and I think they should not. I'd rather
that BCP 14 not be self-referential.
While I don't have strong feelings whether this draft should use 2119 keywords, I don't follow that line of reasoning. It's normal for RFCs to define terms, then use them. And for the record, 2119 does have at least one MUST (see section 6).
Ben (with no hats).