or maybe just file an erratum. I think it's fairly obvious that any document
that actually uses NOT RECOMMENDED should define what it means, if it expects
those words to have any meaning other than the ordinary English meaning of
those words (with or without capitalization).
I've seen documents that didn't quote the 2119 boilerplate verbatim because
they didn't use all of the terms defined in 2119. I didn't see any problem
with that.
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
In any case, Peter, I think its fine to add the NOT RECOMMENDED word to the
boilerplate. Publish a spec on that, have it Update 2119, and then new RFCs
would refer to that (say, 7119) instead of 2119 and everyone would be happy.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf