Robert Klemme wrote:
>>
>>So, no, technically, messages missing "References:" are not in
>>violation of RFC1036.
> 
> 
> Somehow this thread reminds me of discussions about GPL and LGPL.
> Apparently there's still too much room for interpretation in these texts
> although they were meant to clarify things...
> 

I think part of the issue is the use of these modal auxiliaries.
(Thanks, Mrs. Sharp, my elementary English teacher who died last
month at 84.)

Some RFCs use "must" for things that are mandatory and "should" for
things that are recommended or suggested. Or something like that.
They also use the terms "may" and "can" (I believe).

I don't know whether all RFCs do this. I don't think they do.

IIRC, the "technolegal" documents like this tend to capitalize
these: "The client MAY do this, it MUST do that..."

But anyway, I haven't a clue what this part of this RFC actually
means.


Hal