Hi Scott, From: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 at 9:51 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [regext] Re: [Ext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-02.txt
<snip> > 2. I am unclear on the rules about MUST vs must in BCP documents, but there > many instances of lowercase "must" that I think are important, and should be > uppercased, if not to MUST then maybe to SHOULD instead? [SAH] Andy and I touched on this in an earlier exchange. BCP 14 keywords aren't required in a BCP. Note this sentence from the Abstract in RFC 2119: "In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification." A BCP isn't a "standards track document". This sentence was updated in RFC 8174 to "In many IETF documents, several words, when they are in all capitals as shown below, are used to signify the requirements in the specification." BCPs are included with this update. We can make the change if we choose to. I'm fine with the idea of changing the text to use BCP 14 keywords if others see value in the update. Does anyone else support or object to that change? [JS] IMO, it would be valuable to use BCP 14 keywords, if not too onerous. Thanks, Jasdip
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
