that use of a MUST is commendable but its not exactly an interoperability issue to me “must” works in this case (and the other cases in this document) but, that said, 2119 has been misused for kinda a long time so its not a new sin Scott > On Dec 26, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > mornin’ 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
