Tony Hansen wrote:
In -03, there was a bunch of MUSTard (MUST/SHOULD/MAYs) added under
issue 16 (changing informal statements about requirements to more
formal, 2119-like, language). This was an alternative to issue 7 to
switch fully to 2119. Since John posted this, there have been no
Issue 16 and issue 7 are AFAIK mostly unrelated, and I've mentioned
the question of 2119 keywords in other threads. If you think that
16 and 7 are "alternatives" this idea should get its own issue number,
it's the first time that I hear that. And I think it's wrong.
Assuming that we're we talking about the same thing, getting rid of
the idiosyncratic terminology in 2.3 and using a 2119 reference like
numerous other RFCs.
Often John assigned an issue number after some discussion. I have
considered that as "it's now noted, so let's look for other bugs".
I haven't considered these issue numbers as an invitation to post
anything I wrote before they were assigned again, that would make