Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL52] Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor

I agree with the requested change.  Quoting from RFC 2119:

    Authors who follow these guidelines
    should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

       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.

- Ralph

At 01:00 AM 5/5/2004 +0200, Erik Guttman wrote:
>Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the next two 
>weeks
>ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
>consensus given that this is very late in the process.
>
>Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
>current issues and their status.
>
>[LL52]
>
>Description of Issue:           Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor
>Submitter Name:         Stuart Cheshire
>Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
>Date first submitted:           04 May 04
>Reference:
>Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:   e
>Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]: 1
>Section:                        1.1
>Rationale/Explanation:
>Lengthy Description:
>
>>    In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
>>    of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.
>
>[Stuart]
>*Often* capitalized? What does that mean? What does it mean if MUST is
>capitalized? What does it mean if it is not capitalized?
>
>[Erik]
>This is the standard text which goes out with literally every RFC.
>
>[Stuart]
>I disagee.
>
>The draft-07 version *was* the standard text. This is not.
>
>Just reading it, it makes no sense.
>
>It's the wrong paragraph extracted from RFC 2119, out of context, such
>that it has no sensible meaning.
>
>[Erik]
>
>RFC 2119 includes the text in the abstract.  A quick skim of
>a dozen standards track RFCs show that they do not include the
>text you are objecting to, only the legalistic reference to the
>reserved upper case words.
>
>Requested Change:
>
>Omit the unnecessary text before "The key words ..."
>
>Was:
>1.1.  Requirements
>
>    In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
>    of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  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 [RFC2119].
>
>Becomes:
>1.1.  Requirements
>
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", i
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].