Bug#944920: Revise terminology used to specify requirements

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 20:43:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> > I agree, but let's also fix existing incorrect wording.  I reviewed
> > every instance of may and optional in Policy, and I think this larger
> > diff will make wording (mostly) consistent.  I've tried not to change
> > the sense of any of these Policy statements (even though a few are
> > questionable and should probably be revisited).
> 
> Here is an updated version of this patch, including the upgrading
> checklist entry. […]

> Most of this diff is changing normative "may not" phrasings to "must not"
> or some other equivalent, and changing other uses of "may" to "could" or
> other wordings.

I think one of the nice things about RFC2119 is that it uses uppercase
versions for the normative keywords, so that these are very clearly
distinguished both when writing and readin, from sentences that may
use some of the common words but that do not carry any normative
meaning. Was there any consideration in using uppercased keywords?

(I'm asking this irrespective of the actual words being used.)

Thanks,
Guillem