[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?
mellon at fugue.com
Thu Jun 19 06:01:31 PDT 2014
On Jun 19, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:
> Unless anything changes, the IESG will review the text version and insist the all uses of MUST are normative, and all uses of must are not. Then just need to ensure that the markup matches that.
That is not in fact the IESG position on normative language, and the IESG cannot be assumed to be doing that kind of review. We do scan for normative language, but the kind of close edit you are talking about doesn't happen. It would be up to the RFC editor to catch mistakes.
More information about the rfc-interest