Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

> Yes but that's an editing issue.  Go look at how process documentation
> and state machines are handled in serious protocol RFCs.  Some do use
> if/then in a formal way, but some are just informative.  The purpose
> of 2119 is clarity of terminology.

That is good when they use, I seen thoes, but how can we use
terminology so that don't collide, some people use 2119 terms that are
not condition, to describe conditions.

>  Everyone knows what "if" and
> "then" mean - your concern is how they are used.

Yes my concern is how/when use terms not meaning of terms. Ok,  What
about "MUST" (every one know it), wasn't it clear as "if then", please
explain why capital?

> The way to fix that
> is in the particular drafts you have an issue with.
>

 I did put that in one draft already as you say and one participant
before suggest. but I am thinking for the future works and to make the
authors document the specification they implemented more efficiently
without using 2119 terms in conditional and

I thank you for your comments, your email will be more concsidered,

AB