On Aug 30, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Umm, wait. I'm confused. > > The boilerplate in existing documents points to 2119, right? and the updated > boilerplate would point to this spec, if approved, right? so we're not > retroactively changing the meaning of anything, right? > > What am I missing?
If 2119 were to be updated, that's how it should work. If we're going to retroactively clarify the meanings of the keywords, that should probably be done on a per-document basis. (here's what we really meant when we said SHOULD in RFC XXXX...) I think it's very premature to assume that 2119 will be updated. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
