IDnits

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> Mark Crispin writes:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Ken Murchison wrote:
> >
> > > - Section 2: Even though I know what RFC4422 and RFC3501 are, I'd 
> > > like to see the acronyms used with the references.  e.g.
> > > "The [RFC4422} ..."      ->  "The SASL [RFC4422] ..."
> > > "... any [RFC3501] ..."  ->  "... any IMAP [RFC3501] ..."
> > > "... any [RFC4422] ..."  ->  "... any SASL [RFC4422] ..."
> >
> > Or just change the reference names so that the RFC only needs to be 
> > changed once, in the references, e.g., [SASL], [IMAP], etc.
>
> I keep the RFC numbers and rewrite as Ken suggests. I'd started that 
> already, because it optimises for readability and because idnits 
> insists on seeing "RFC 2119" in that boilerplace sentence.

It turns out that one can use:

  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 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 [RFC2119].

  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 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 [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 [KEYWORDS].

  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 [KEYWORDS].

However the [KEYWORDS] reference has to be properly defined:

  [KEYWORDS]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

instead of:

  [KEYWORDS]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.