This is a parking place for more discussion of when to MUST, SHOULD, MAY and the use of algorithms in normative specifications
(Specifications of languages, protocols, and protocol elements often use normative language to define a notion of conformance. How does this interact with evolution? Right now this is in Concepts, does it need more explanation. Specifications can evolve without language evolving in order to accomodate future evolution? Future-proofing implementations hard to test..)
(this section would talk about how a protocol has "roles": client, server, proxy, user agent; specifications describe a language used by many of the roles, and a protocol between muttiple parties, each of which has a role in a particular transaction. Discuss the relationship between strict and loose conformance requirements; specs intended for multiple roles but reviewed only by one, difference between "ease of implementation" vs. "breadth of allowable implementations". http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification
Want to talk somewehre about the "precision" vs "flexilbility"... not a a matter of "ease of implementation" (say "use this opensource implementaiton" is easy to implement, but not flexible)