RE: A question about requirements

["Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com>]

> As I watch discussions in some other groups, and am possibly 
> approaching such an issue in my WG, I have started wondering 
> about the force of requirements documents published as 
> Informational.
>
<snip>
> 
> yet fill them with words like MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD etc...

Are there really documents published as Informational, using 
these words? In ROHC, we were about to do that a few years ago,
but we were told by the AD to rewrite the document and only
use regular words (must, should, etc). 

If the words are used as defined by 2119, I interpret them as
only intended for standards track documents. If used in e.g.
informational documents, I think the meaning of the words
should be defined within such documents.

/L-E