Hi,
as already noted by several contributors the definitions in
2821bis section 2.3 are (apparently) verbatim copies of the
corresponding BCP 14 definitions (sections 1..5).
In the interest of readers I propose to reduce section 2.3:
| 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
| defined in RFC 2119 sections 1-5.
With that wording any strange objections that 2821bis might
not exactly adhere to the guidance in section 6 of BCP 14
are doomed.
The draft could even adopt Bruce's style and only define the
terms actually used in the draft: I found no occurence of
REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, or
OPTIONAL in the body of 2821bis-05. With that we'd get:
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
| and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as
| defined in sections 1-5 of RFC 2119.
Idnits will holler, but that's okay.
Frank