> At 05:44 PM 2/4/00 +0100, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> >Can we cut down on this please: 'shall', 'shall not', 'should',
> >and 'should not' ought to be enough. I don't see why having
> >'must', 'shall', and 'required' would all be needed. Similarly
> >for 'should' and 'recommended'. 'Must not' (and 'may not') have
> >lingustic issues, and should never be used in formal documents.
>
> RFC 2119 says that the wording that is in the current
> pre-draft should be
> used in documents that refer to RFC 2119.
If RFC 2119 applies to itself, the 'should' indicates
that that sentence is not required, in particular
it need not be quoted verbatim, and one may well cut
it down to size.
Kind regards
/kent k