> 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
