SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> writes:
At 17:03 01-02-10, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ah, thank you. Changed to SHOULD on the assumption that the (pre-2119)
language in RFC 1034 was intended to have roughly the same meaning.
"SHOULD" as a requirement first appeared in RFC 1122. It does not
necessarily apply to RFCs published before RFC 2119.
I guess I'm not clear on what you think the correct fix is. I'm hesitant
to use a lowercase "should" in a document that explicitly references RFC
2119, since then it's ambiguous what that is supposed to mean in terms of
a standard requirement.
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
Ietf mailing list