Skip to content

Registry requirements should not use RFC2119 language #240

@marcoscaceres

Description

@marcoscaceres

Sections that are informative shouldn't be using normative language, unless we make the language forceful, but is can't be MUST/SHOULD/MAY etc.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    registryregistry related

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions