>In numerous places the development and deployment guide makes use of RFC >2119 language that is vague in its meaning. For example: > > In particular, great care MUST be taken when > releasing memory pages to the operating system to ensure that private > key information is not disclosed to other processes. > >This actually tells the implementor very little. My recommendation >would be to change to "must".
Channeling Dave here, 2119 language is case independent, i.e., must and MUST mean the same thing, and the capitalization just calls it out. In the current -ssp draft I looked for places that used 2119 words and either capitalized them if they were giving advice on making implementations interoperate, or rewrote them to use other words if not. Lots of existing BCPs include 2119 normative language, so that argument appears already to have been decided, but I agree they're overused here. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
