Re: Which is the right "RFC2119" Boilerplate?

On 2017-06-26 17:14, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>   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?
> ...
Seems that idnits needs an update.

Best regards, Julian

PS: would be good if it also accepted non-ASCII characters, at least 
optionally per opt-in...