Subject: Re: RFC2119 Keywords

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:09:29 GMT

*> I don't believe the intent of 2119 was to change the meanings of
  *> "should", "must", etc., in RFCs, but rather to define new terms 
  *> "SHOULD", "MUST", etc., with specific new meanings.
  *> 
  *> Keith 
  *> 

Keith's statement was certainly correct when we first introduced the
capitalized words in the Host Requirements RFCs (1122,1123).

Bob Brden

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:52:17 -0800

> capitalized words in the Host Requirements RFCs (1122,1123).

Actually, MUST was first introduced in RFC1023 two years earlier :-)
The list is as follows:

	1023	MUST
	1085	MAY
	1122	SHOULD

Joe

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:28:42 +0700

Date:        Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:52:17 -0800
    From:        Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Actually, MUST was first introduced in RFC1023 two years earlier :-)

That's true, it appears there, but there it really is just a
strange typographical convention (or shouting, for emphasis).

It certainly isn't defined to mean anything special.   In 1122/3 it was.
(Further, 1122/1123 defined the terms in a very specific way, which was
highly useful - quite the contrary of what most specifications using the
things these days do).

kre