Hi, as already noted by several contributors the definitions in 2821bis section 2.3 are (apparently) verbatim copies of the corresponding BCP 14 definitions (sections 1..5).
In the interest of readers I propose to reduce section 2.3: | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", | "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", | and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as | defined in RFC 2119 sections 1-5. With that wording any strange objections that 2821bis might not exactly adhere to the guidance in section 6 of BCP 14 are doomed. The draft could even adopt Bruce's style and only define the terms actually used in the draft: I found no occurence of REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL in the body of 2821bis-05. With that we'd get: | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", | and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as | defined in sections 1-5 of RFC 2119. Idnits will holler, but that's okay. Frank
