RE: opsec and 2119 keywords

[George Jones <gmj@pobox.com>]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, George Jones wrote:

> OK.  One more time on 2119.    It looks like the options are
>
>   1. Leave UPPERCASE keywords in per 2119 as the are now.
>      There is no apparent technical conflict with using them this way in an
>      info, but there are people with reservations about whether we
>      SHOULD (should ?) do this in a doc that is non-BCP.
>
>   2. 1,$s/MUST/must/g
>      1,$s/SHOULD/should/g...
>
>      This would address the concerns, allow the doc to get out quickly
>      as info (per consensus of the BoF), but weaken the strength of
>      the reqs.  Would probably also add some verbiage making it explicit
>      that these "musts", "shoulds" etc DO NOT have the force of 2119
>      and that individual operators will have to decide for themselves
>      which reqs are MUSTs for their situation.

Does anyone see a substantial differnece between 1. with a bold
disclaimer that the MUSTs etc represent MY opinion and 2. with
a note saying that the musts etc are MY opinion ?

Leaving the MUSTs, with big disclaimer, remove potential ambiguity
between that which I intend as a formal requirement and the casual
usage of "must", "should" outside the actual body of the requrements.

---George