Valery Smyslov writes: > > ** Section 3.2 > > > > If more authentication methods are defined in future, the > > corresponding documents must describe the semantics of the > > announcements for these methods. > > > > -- Should this be a s/must/MUST? > > With my understanding of using BCP14 language, these keywords are > usually concerned with protocols behavior. In this case the "must" > is concerned with human (document authors) behavior :-) > > That said, I understand that this may be interpreted differently, so > if you think "MUST" is more appropriate here than "must", I'll be > happy to make the change.
I think lowercase must is correct, as this is not protocol issue. I have also had a customers to come to me asking me which specific lines of code implement every single MUST/SHOULD etc. I already had difficulties to explaining which lines of code implement some of the MUST NOTs, but it would be even harder to explain which line of code implements the MUST given to future spec writers... Of course, we could require that in the future all specs are written by AI, and that AI MUST follow all MUST rules set in previous RFCs :-) Ah, I just realized that does not work, as there is no way to give the lines of code that implement that requirement in the AI... -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
