So as I understand it, documents which adhere to rfc2119-update will
cite BCP14 and the RFCXXXX which this document will have?
or will it cite RFC2119 and RFCXXXX?
Are you suggesting that we should be citing BCP14 though?
Is there really something unclear about the boilerplate update in Section 2?:
Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase
near the beginning of their document:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and
"MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119],[RFCxxxx] when, and only when, they appear
capitalized, as shown.
That is suggesting that we *call* this "BCP 14", and that the
citations be to RFC 2119 and to this document. That makes it clear
that 2119 applies, as updated by this.
It seems that retaining section 1.1 might be worth it.
Perhaps, though I don't think it really has archival value. Do others
think it should be retained?
XML format and screen readers.
I have not looked deeply into the final RFC-format XML spec.
Does it already markup SHOULD/MUST/MAY in some useful way?
Could it? If it does, should this document point out this?
That's a good point, and I will look into what this might need to say
with respect to the XML markup.
Barry