-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In article
<CALaySJL-kfjQO=P3aVWwu6zEz6y5k7bngqEf0eqShWjAKAZ7Ug(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
you write:
In fact, we *do* often (though not always) cite update documents when
we're explicitly talking about a feature that was updated. I think we
do it when calling the reader's attention to the update is
particularly important.
Agreed, since this update is not backward compatible. It would have
been a lot cleaner to replace 2119 with, say, 8119, but I can see why
you didn't want to open that particular institutional size can of
worms.
even with "MUST", the BCP 14 meaning
explicitly says that it's a protocol requirement that affects
interoperability or security, and we do seem to think that making that
distinction is important.
That is surprisingly unclear to a lot of people, particularly ones not
deeply embedded in the IETF. We know that MUST means "do this if you
want to interoperate" but I know people who imagine it means "do this
or else."
R's,
John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQSVwJVU9sGa3lHFnZyQSIVF14L+RQUCWJn4MwAKCRCQSIVF14L+
RaGVAKClNRLd3etWBc66VVYpcrBf0AEzYgCgiKewpNuqVcXB0fn9J8DWc49c1c0=
=O3f4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----