From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Aug 26 2004 - 07:47:41 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> That particular MUST has been in our draft for the past 5 years, at least,
> and everyone has accepted it (and you have not complained about it before
> now).
No matter. inappropriate use of RFC 2119 language won't fly.
> As I pointed out yesterday, it is merely a little stronger than the
> SHOULD at the corresponding place in RFC 2822.
No, Charles, the RFC 2119 terms are distinct and very different in meaning;
SHOULD is a recommendation, MUST is an absolute requirement. MUST (and MUST NOT)
may only be used where there is a clear interoperability requirement or the
need to prevent network damage, neither of which applies to References.