Barry,
Your proposed text says:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 [RFC2119],[RFCxxxx] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
The above text raises an interesting problem. If the update system works
then
the text should read [RFC2119]. If the update system does not work than
the text needs to be [RFC2119],[RFCxxxx] as shown, but we also need to move
to a system where we always list the update set at the time of
publication, for
example in RFC5462:
Updates: 3032, 3270, 3272, 3443, 3469,
3564, 3985, 4182, 4364, 4379,
4448, 4761, 5129
If your text is right, then whenever I would write [RFC3032], I should
in future
write [RFC3032],[RFC5462] etc, alternatively your text is incorrect and
should simply say [RFC2119].
I am also somewhat curious about the practical implication of
misinterpreting
MUST as must, and must as MUST.
For example: if A receives a foo packet, it MUST/must reply with a bar
packet
The interoperability considerations are identical, with but with the
advantage
that MUST draws the eye of the reader to the point and reducing the
chance
that they will miss it. Similarly with the other keywords. So is there
really
a problem to be fixed here?
- Stewart