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

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Thu Jun 19 06:55:46 PDT 2014

It may or may not be consensus, and things may change. But put in Internet Drafts to become RFCs, and at least the set of ADs before the last changeover would do that - whether you wanted them to or not.

Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon at fugue.com] 
Sent: 19 June 2014 14:53
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; RFC Interest; Paul Hoffman
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.

On Jun 19, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:
> That may not be the official IESG position. It's the de facto IESG position. ADs can and do query whether something that is MUST ought to be must and vice versa.

No, this isn't actually true.   This is something the IESG has discussed recently, and what you have said is not in fact the consensus of the IESG.   We haven't actually come to a consensus on this topic, but you can see the incremental results of the discussion here: 


This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list