Re: axfr-clarify's fraudulent claims of consensus

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

Keith Moore writes:
  [ RFC 2119 section 6 ]
> only applies to documents that cite RFC 2119 for definitions of those terms.

That's exactly what axfr-clarify does in section 1: ``The key words
"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD
NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].''

The author will, presumably, try to weasel out of RFC 2119 section 6 by
dropping the reference to RFC 2119. Why is this tolerated? Why would any
legitimate standards organization _want_ to violate the basic principles
stated in RFC 2119? The IETF shouldn't be sticking its nose into private
implementation decisions that don't cause interoperability problems.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago