Re: [apps-discuss] Use of RFC 2119, Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-03.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-03-21 15:19, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I said...
>>> I'm sure.  And it's my text -- this is one that Mykyta doesn't like.
>>> The three MUSTs in there are not directed at IANA, but at people
>>> writing new registrations.  They tell those people what their
>>> registrations have to look like, and I wanted to use MUST to stress
>>> that even though this is an FCFS policy, there are requirements
>>> nonetheless.
>
> Julian says...
>> I'm with Murray here. This is something RFC 2119 keywords are not for.
>
> OK... and given the conversations that Pete and I have had recently
> (we're both in favour of less unnecessary all-caps 2119 stuff), I
> think a change is appropriate.  Let's lower-case (or remove) those
> three "MUST"s (and there are three others that are already in lower
> case, which is fine).
> ...

+1, except that I would replace "must" by "needs to" (otherwise somebody 
else will point out that RFC2119 doesn't require the keywords to be in 
uppercase).

Best regards, Julian