Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> Sat, 29 July 2000 23:10 UTC

Received: from (CS.UTK.EDU []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02562 for <>; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:10:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id TAA00339; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:10:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (bulk_mailer v1.13); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:10:18 -0400
Received: from (marvin@localhost) by with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id TAA00323; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( -> ASTRO.CS.UTK.EDU) by (smtpshim v1.0); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:10:18 -0400
Received: (from moore@localhost) by (cf 8.9.3) id TAA27986 for; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:10:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (marvin@localhost) by with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA26502; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:25:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU ( -> munnari.OZ.AU) by (smtpshim v1.0); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:25:14 -0400
Received: from ([]) by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.59) id VA11481; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 07:24:58 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU)
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: Charles Lindsey <>
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:44:08 +0100." <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 07:24:57 +1000
Message-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

    Date:        Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:44:08 +0100 (BST)
    From:        Charles Lindsey <>
    Message-ID:  <>

  | We were told in no uncertain terms that we could not do either of those
  | things. The most we would be allowed to do would be to use "ought" in
  | lower case for such things (which is what we will likely now do).

I have no idea which AD told you that, but either they misunderstood
exactly what it was you were asking, or they had lost the plot completely.

2119 is a nice common reference for some terms which (these days) are
commonly used in documents - but there has never been, and isn't, any
compulsion to use the things, or to refrain from defining your own terms
to augment what is in 2119.

If anything like that were to be considered as a requirement for the IETF
it would have to be agreed by the IETF first - and the way that would be
done would be by going through the poisson WG first, and then an IETF
last call after that.   None of that has happened for any suggestion in
any way related to use of 2119, it hasn't even been hinted at.

Neither ADs, nor the IESG get to just invent new rules, any time it looks
like that is what is happening you should investigate closely - sometimes
it is all just a misunderstanding (or an old rule you didn't know about is
being applied).  Other times the AD/IESG has just lost the plot.