@Dee that's up for you to choose

@ckie oh, I dunno, some of my best friends have been human... and also I've seen some good domains...

@Dee stipulation: it must not make sense, as per rfc 2119

@ckie look I violate specs all the time

@Dee no, but, you can't!

2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

@ckie who's gonna stop me, IETF cops?

@Dee maybe if you get rw access to that document you can fix it so every "MUST NOT" means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification

@ckie this is how you break all computing

@Dee oh right, also swap "MUST" to "MUST NOT"'s old definition, as you MUST not cause a cyclic reference

@Dee (I MAY be enjoying my humor)

@ckie oh, I wasn't even thinking of cyclic references. I was just thinking of how many standards reference RFC 2119, and so if any definition in it changed, the meaning of those standards would change, and so all computing would break

@Dee well, clearly the solution is to make more standards.

@Dee the ietf webserver should serve different versions of specs based on whether you are requesting via https or http

@ckie RFC 6940: computers MUST¹ work correctly and MUST NOT work incorrectly

@ckie I accidentally submitted this without footnotes so I guess it's anyone's guess what this means