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

"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> Fri, 7 May 2004 10:40:03 -0000

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.zeroconf
Organization	Engineering Arts
Message-ID	<013001c4341f$a79a14e0$131010ac@aldebaran>

> From: "Ralph Droms" <[email protected]>
>
> 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.

We have the recommended text verbatim from RFC2119.

We also have two introductory sentences: "In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements of the specification. These words are often capitalized."

The two extra sentences are also lifted directly from RFC2119 and as such it is hard to argue against them. They may be redundant, but they are not harmful and it should be too late to change them.

Philip