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

As I suggested earlier, we should follow the recommendation of 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 10:34 PM 5/6/2004 -0700, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> >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