-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <CALaySJL-kfjQO=P3aVWwu6zEz6y5k7bngqEf0eqShWjAKAZ7Ug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >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. Agreed, since this update is not backward compatible. It would have been a lot cleaner to replace 2119 with, say, 8119, but I can see why you didn't want to open that particular institutional size can of worms. > 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. That is surprisingly unclear to a lot of people, particularly ones not deeply embedded in the IETF. We know that MUST means "do this if you want to interoperate" but I know people who imagine it means "do this or else." R's, John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQSVwJVU9sGa3lHFnZyQSIVF14L+RQUCWJn4MwAKCRCQSIVF14L+ RaGVAKClNRLd3etWBc66VVYpcrBf0AEzYgCgiKewpNuqVcXB0fn9J8DWc49c1c0= =O3f4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----