morninʼ scott,
> it is hard to see why it should be standards track or why it should
> be using RFC 2119 type terminology.
these are two separate issues.
alvaro and the chairs can adjudicate what flavor of ice cream it should
be. it my memory says it was a wg decision. i really do not care.
as to 2119 language, i kinda feel it should remain. it is used
sparingly. but is crucial when used. e.g.
all private keys MUST be protected when at rest in a secure
fashion.
i suspect we would want to keep that strongly prescriptive; but it is
not a hill on which i am interested in dying.
randy
