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

Thomas Heide Clausen ietf at thomasclausen.org
Thu Jun 19 08:37:48 PDT 2014



> On 19 juin 2014, at 17:12, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Thomas Clausen <ietf at thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>> I have to jump in and support Chris here — whatever you say the IESG has discussed recently, and whatever consensus has been expressed by the IESG recently, ADs have in the past — both long past and very recent past — raised must/MUST  should/SHOULD issues in their reviews. 
>> 
>> Some ADs, over the years, very energetically so, even.
>> 
>> It may not be official policy, of course. But it happens. Often - systematically, even.
> 
> You do have to be clear.   If I have to ask whether language is normative or not, I will.

As well you should. I'm not asking that you (or your AD colleagues) stop doing that. I'm just supporting Chris when he says that you, indeed, are ;)


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list