> You'd think that should be the case, and given 2119 it is all that
makes
> sense, but there are way too many cases where the subject turns out to
> be (explicitly or implicitly) "authors of future RFCs".
In RFC 2542 ("Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax") I wound up
using a notation {1} {2} {3} to replace MUST/SHOULD/MAY when talking
about what future RFCs should do
{1} there is general agreement that this is a critical
characteristic of any definition of ....
{2} most believe that this is an important characteristic
of .....
{3} there is general belief that this is a useful feature
of ....., but that other factors might override;
a definition that does not provide this element is
acceptable.
