On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Paul Hoffman
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> wrote:
It is also completely reasonable to say "needs to include" as well.
Blargh. The word you want to use there is "must." You're saying "needs to"
because you mean "must" but are trying to say it a different way. "Needs to"
does not mean the same thing as "must."
There has been some discussion of this topic recently in the IESG, which
(AFAIK) has not reached consensus on the following:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/Draft2119BoilerplateSuggestions
I'd be curious to hear reactions, bearing in mind that this is _not_ an IESG
statement, at least at the moment.