yup
Scott
On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
On 2013-10-29 21:46, Bradner, Scott wrote:
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
Well yes, I've seen that too.
But there *is* confusion about whether it's the right approach, and it would
be really cool if there was some consistency with respect to this.
Best regards, Julian