Sent from my iPad > On 27 Jun 2017, at 04:29, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > And perhaps Stewart should look at the Errata for RFC 2119, if he has not already. It has been my long standing concern that for all practical purposes no one look at errata! Indeed I doubt that many will until the RFC Editor appends the verified errata to RFCs, or takes some similar approach with them. In this case I looked at the errata and could not see anything, what did I miss? At a different level maybe we need an xml tag that includes the 2119 boilerplate? Stewart