Henrik is aware that idnits needs to be updated, and is working on that. He's been in contact with me about it. (I actually thought he'd already put the fix up, but I guess not.) Barry On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I diligently included in a draft the updated "RFC2119" boilerplate which > includes the reference to RFC8174. > > Nits then complains that it does not like the RFC2119 text (which is cut and > paste from a very recent RFC). > > So which is right, nits or the RFC Editor? > > ================= > > == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if > it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph > with > a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? > > RFC 2119, paragraph 2: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in > this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. > > ... text found in draft: > 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] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they > appear in all capitals, as shown here. > > > (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the > ID-Checklist requires). > > ================= > > - Stewart