[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?
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
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
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the rfc-interest