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

On 5/4/04 6:00 PM, "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]> 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].

I support this. The fact that they are capitalized as they are listed is a
clear sign that this is a common case usage. Telling people they are often
capitalized is redundant, especially with the reference to 2119.

john

-- 
Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or
later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass.
-- Dave 'Preacher' Pace