Nevertheless, there was specific boilerplate agreed to by community consensus, and we should be consistent about using it. The IESG has repeatedly rejected variations from it, and if they approved the draft with a variation it’s because the difference is subtle enough that they didn’t notice.
Barry On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 1:07 AM Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote: > Hi Barry, > > > On 28. Feb 2025, at 02:41, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > > > > Indeed… author of 8174 here… > > > > It’s not that I care, but that it was the community consensus to be > explicit. BCP 14 could refer to just 2119 (before the update) or to 2119 > as updated by 8174. The community wanted the boilerplate to make it > explicitly clear whether or not the “all caps” clarification was in effect > at the time of approval. Hence the citation of the two RFCs rather than > the BCP number. > > Here is the citation as in the approved I-D: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in > [BCP14] (RFC2119) (RFC8174) when, and only when, they appear in all > capitals, as shown here. > > Here is the proposed regression to RFC 8174: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in > BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > capitals, as shown here. > > I do not believe this is more explicit in any way. > > Grüße, Carsten > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
