--On Tuesday, August 26, 2025 15:51 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * > Is there a rule somewhere that IETF documents (at least on the > standards * > track) MUST reference BCP 14? > > Nothing in the formal RFCs that document how the IETF works. > There's an IESG statement: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarif > ying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ Let me go a half-step further. There is nothing, either in BCP 14 nor that IESG statement, that requires the use of BCP 14 vocabulary or definitions. The IESG statement even says "BCP 14 is an optional tool, and not strictly necessary." At least in principle, nothing would prevent a document from avoiding BCP 14 terminology or a reference to it, then using the same words (even in capital letters), and giving entirely different definitions for them or using different words entirely. Especially if the same words were used, I'd predict that such a document would have a very tough time during Last Call and IESG review as various people asked (demanded?) that the authors demonstrate sufficient justification for the confusion that would likely cause, insisted that the document be super-clear about what it was doing (not just omitting the BCP 14 reference), and demanded that the justification meet a very high bar. But the main reason for not doing it is that it would be confusing and generally dumb, not that there is any specific rule saying that BCP 14 definitions MUST (sic) be used. john
