<pseudo-chair hat on>
Consensus has been reached on this issue.
1) RFC 2119-compliance
Replace section 2.3 text with the following:
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
and add a sentence such as the following:
As each of these terms were intentionally and carefully chosen
to improve the interoperability of email, the use of these terms
is to be treated as NORMATIVE in all cases.
</pseudo-chair hat off>
Frank Ellermann wrote:
The IESG wrote:
<draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-06.txt> as a Draft Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
and solicits final comments on this action.
I-D.klensin-2821bis 2.3 contains a list of defined terms
which are *apparently* copied verbatim from RFC 2119
without stating the source. This is hostile to readers
trying to figure out what the difference might be, and
if bypassing RFC 2119 chapter 6 really is the goal a
less irritating solution should be possible, compare
Ietf mailing list