On 05/21/2013 12:30 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure that you as AD approved Informational RFCs that used 2119
language, and that this was discussed during your tenure on the IESG.
My recollection is that other ADs were the ones who insisted that 2119
language not be used for Informational documents. I was more concerned
about other things, but I could see their point.
If the document is going to be published as Informational, rewording the
document to remove 2119 language is my recommendation. But it's not
something I feel like making a huge fuss over.
If the document is still being considered as Proposed Standard, 2119
language would be appropriate. But I believe that this RRtype is
fundamentally inappropriate for the standards track.
Keith