RE: A question about requirements

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> I agree with you when considering protocols published as
> informational, i.e. "standards-track type" documents. However,
> for non-protocols, e.g. "requirements", which was the origin
> of this thread, I do not think the upper-case words can be
> used based on 2119.
>
> But if the IESG thinks it is ok, I have no problem with that...=)

Here's an excerpt from RFC 2989:

1.1.  Requirements language

   In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "optional",
   "recommended", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be interpreted as
   described in [RFC2119].

   Please note that the requirements specified in this document are to
   be used in evaluating protocol submissions.  As such, the
   requirements language refers to capabilities of these protocols; the
   protocol documents will specify whether these features are required,
   recommended, or optional.  For example, requiring that a protocol
   support confidentiality is NOT the same thing as requiring that all
   protocol traffic be encrypted.

   A protocol submission is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or
   more of the MUST or MUST NOT requirements for the capabilities that
   it implements.  A protocol submission that satisfies all the MUST,
   MUST NOT, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT requirements for its capabilities is
   said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the
   MUST and MUST NOT requirements but not all the SHOULD or SHOULD NOT
   requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally
   compliant."