The scope of RFC 2119 is clearly standards-track documents. Documents that
aren't standards should not be worded as if they were; this is likely to cause
confusion about the status of the document.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Paul Hoffman
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> wrote:
On May 21, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track
documents.
Can you support that statement with a reference to an RFC or an IESG
statement that supports it?
Informational documents cannot impose requirements.
Same request.
I don't find either statement supported by RFC 2119 or 2026, or any updates
to the latter, but I may have missed it.
--Paul Hoffman