Submit XLIFF 2.1 to ISO

David Filip emailed Jamie and me with a preliminary question wrt normative key words in standards submitted to ISO

—
Hi Chet, Jamie,

we are now in the very last stages with XLIFF Version 2.1.

You are probably aware that XLIFF 2.0 has been published last November as ISO 21720:2017.

This whole "fast track" exercise lasted too long and took way more effort than originally expected. Still there is value in this publication especially for institutional public sector buyers of localization services.. so we would actually like to submit 2.1 through the fast track again..

Now, I vaguely recollect that Jamie mentioned in one call with the ISO stakeholders that we were OK with OASIS keywords because this is a first submission..
I sensed immediately that this probably means issues for subsequent submissions of XLIFF 2.1, 2.2 and so on.. but we had other priorities at the moment so I let it flow making a mental note for later on.. and now is the later on

Could you please elaborate on the OASIS ISO fast track agreement in this respect? Did I correctly suspect that subsequent submissions of OASIS standards need to be redesigned to use ISO style normative keywords?

If so..
Is it something that is considered an editorial exercise that can be done on a standard that had been fully ratified at OASIS with OASIS [IETF] style keywords?
Or does it effectively preclude us from submitting XLIFF 2.1 to ISO?
And should we change our XLIFF 2.2 template to use ISO style keywords?

Honestly, I believe that the OASIS / IETF keyword practice is far superior to the traditional ISO way. I don't mind reformulating MUST as SHALL, but I understand that it is also ISO policy to prohibit capitalization of the key words, which seems outright ill advised..

Thanks in advance for your guidance in this
—

I replied that Patrick D. has the expertise on the reformatting. Leaving to Jamie the question of whether move to 2.1 will trigger requirement to revised formatting.