<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
RFC 2119.
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>
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
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
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/6260/>
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf