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

>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].

Actually, specifically what I'd like is that we just put it back exactly 
how it was in earlier drafts:

   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 "Key words for use in
   RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC 2119].


Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org