see rfc 2418 page 3 as well as RFC 2434 page 3 for an example of non-protocol
uses of 2119 terms
fwiw - I have seen 2119 terms used in registration type RFCs for rather many
years
I think it is too late to unwind that clock
Scott
Scott Bradner
Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation & Architecture
+1 617 495 3864
1350 Mass Ave., Room 760
Cambridge, MA 02138
www.harvard.edu/huit
On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
On 2013-10-29 21:29, Bradner, Scott wrote:
seems to me to be completely reasonable to say MUST include the number of
the RFC that describes
the protocol being registered (for example)
Scott
But then:
6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for
interoperability.
To me this indicates that we should keep them out of registrations procedures.
(I also note that the "MUST" in the text I quoted shouldn't been used if the
text followed its own advice :-).
Best regards, Julian