Hi, Stewart. > 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, It took me a while to get what you mean here, but I think I have it: you're saying that because this document (RFC xxxx) UPDATES RFC 2119, *any* document that cites RFC 2119 and is published after this one must automatically be taken to refer to this one and must follow the terms of this one. So why have the double citation? You're right, as far as that goes, but if it's important to know for sure whether a document is following the terms of RFC xxxx or not (and see below about that), then I think it's important to be explicit about it. It's a question of clarity: the reader of another document should not have to wonder, should not have to check publication dates, should not be uncertain. Having the citation there explicitly is good for clarity. In fact, we *do* often (though not always) cite update documents when we're explicitly talking about a feature that was updated. I think we do it when calling the reader's attention to the update is particularly important. Now, as to the other point: > 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? This did come up in earlier discussion about "MUST". Sure, it's possible that there really isn't a reason to define "MUST" in BCP 14 because the English meaning is clear enough. But "SHOULD" and "MAY" do need these definitions: the English meanings don't accurately convey the BCP 14 meaning. And even with "MUST", the BCP 14 meaning explicitly says that it's a protocol requirement that affects interoperability or security, and we do seem to think that making that distinction is important. In any case, the current BCP 14 defines "MUST", and it's specifically not a goal of this document to change that older decision. Barry