My first reaction was that the entire topic is a bike shed. The goal is clear
and understandable specifications and 2119 is just a tool we use to make the
process of producing and reading specifications more efficient.
What I'm getting from this is that there are a significant number of drafts
On 8/30/11 2:08 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Because the current suggestion -- which turns RFC writing into the game
"Taboo" [1], but with incredibly common English words [2] as the
forbidden list -- is ridiculous on its face.
Don't use requirements language unless you absolutely have to.
Otherwise,
On 8/30/11 2:23 AM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
On 2011-08-30 at 07:36:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
for long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended
to obsolete RFC 2119.
IS THERE ANY CHANCE OF AGREEING THAT SHOUTING IS BAD? (i.e., Burger's first anti-law.)
As opposed to mand
