Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

"D. J. Bernstein" <> Fri, 28 July 2000 14:40 UTC

Received: from (CS.UTK.EDU []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03930 for <>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:40:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA14049; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:40:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:40:22 -0400
Received: by (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA14015; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:40:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (marvin@localhost) by with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA14001; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( -> by (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:40:20 -0400
Received: (qmail 28741 invoked by uid 1001); 28 Jul 2000 14:40:41 -0000
Date: 28 Jul 2000 14:40:41 -0000
Message-ID: <>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <>
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Keith Moore writes:
> as Dan pointed out, there is language in 2119 (specifically 
> section 6) that over-constrains use of 2119.

That's not what I said.

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest flaw in section 6 of RFC 2119 is
that IETF documents in general _aren't_ required to follow it.

If you're violating section 6, chances are excellent that you're
violating United States antitrust law. In the words of the Federal Trade
Commission, standards must not impose ``construction requirements'' in
place of ``performance requirements.''

I understand that the smtpupd editor refuses to follow section 6. I was
trying to stay away from this issue, so that we could focus on bringing
the document's definition of ``SHOULD'' in line with what the readers
will expect. Copying the RFC 2119 text is the easiest way to do this.


P.S. Why hasn't Newman declared that your message will be ignored? See
section 4 of his ``procedures.''