Spec should have a reference to RFC2119

[mikebrow]

For clarity purposes the words like MUST should be defined by the spec. For example:

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.. link: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

[wking]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:36:55PM -0800, Mike Brown wrote:

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.. link:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

+1.

[philips]

+1. We should probably have some huge flag day where we agree to make these
changes.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:31 PM W. Trevor King notifications@github.com
wrote:

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:36:55PM -0800, Mike Brown wrote:

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.. link:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

+1.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#256 (comment)
.

[vbatts]

👍

[wking]

This can probably be closed now that #260 has landed.