From 5c087aafbcb0bd24b3e782df230f07fea3175967 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "W. Trevor King" Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:40:29 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] spec: Add "NOT RECOMMENDED" to RFC 2119 keywords Catching up with erratum 499 [1]. [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2119 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King --- spec.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/spec.md b/spec.md index 2616c6c9a..f5c351460 100644 --- a/spec.md +++ b/spec.md @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ The goal of this specification is to enable the creation of interoperable tools ## Notational Conventions -The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119) (Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997). +The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119) (Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997). The key words "unspecified", "undefined", and "implementation-defined" are to be interpreted as described in the [rationale for the C99 standard][c99-unspecified].