[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Thu Jun 19 06:34:33 PDT 2014


Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.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.

1) I think that the idnits tool could mark uses of must/should/etc.
   which seem to be non-normative....
2) I think that the shephard write-up could say more about this.
   That pushesit back to the WG, where it belongs.

I would appreciate the markup being in the xml.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140619/cb61d051/attachment.sig>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list