On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:17:15AM +0100, Gmail wrote: > > > 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. Part of why I always use the https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcNNNN URLs is that they do indicate when errata exist. > In this case I looked at the errata and could not see anything, what did I miss? > Hmm, there are more errata here than I remembered; sorry for making you do guesswork. I was thinking of EID 499, which adds "NOT RECOMMENDED" to the list in the boilerplate, and is the first difference that idnits was complaining about, if I was reading its output correctly. > At a different level maybe we need an xml tag that includes the 2119 boilerplate? Seems useful. -Ben