> have to remember their redefinitions of words like SHOULD, MUST, MAY, MIGHT, PERHAPS, QUITE POSSIBLY I find that to be one of the easier parts. They establis

> have to remember their redefinitions of words like SHOULD, MUST, MAY, MIGHT, PERHAPS, QUITE POSSIBLY I find that to be one of the easier parts. They establish a very careful set of vocabulary and then use it consistently and CAPS it to make sure you don't accidentally miss it. The definitions match the standard of the definitions, so it's not hard to remember. They embody the concepts "you have to", "you are not allowed to", "you can if you want", "we encourage you to", and "we don't know for sure but we think so", and a couple others. They have to be precise, they're trying to write the equivalent of human code. Wiggle room and vagueness is bad. One problem with RFC quality is that they pull in standards from other areas, so sometimes X was written for one standards body, Y for yet another, but they were both converted to an RFC and thus the styles differ.