I diligently included in a draft the updated "RFC2119" boilerplate
which includes the reference to RFC8174.
Nits then complains that it does not like the RFC2119 text (which is cut
and paste from a very recent RFC).
So which is right, nits or the RFC Editor?
=================
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
RFC 2119, paragraph 2:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
... text found in draft:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
................................................^
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
(The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
ID-Checklist requires).
=================
- Stewart