RFC 2119 language

Across all the drafts there is use of both upper and lower case RFC 2119 and other near control language, such as "would be," etc. I'm not at all certain how to implement "would be," for example

Personally I would sweep the drafts into declarative form and drop the use of RFC 2119 terminology outside of the conformance clauses, all upper case of course.

For example, from OSLC Discovery 3.0, 5.5:

*****
In addition to the ways one can discover if a given OSLC Server supports creation of resources and for which types, it is helpful to understand if there are server-enforced constraints on the resource representation. Clients can discover these constraints either through the http://open-services.net/ns/core#resourceShape property of a Creation Factory resource, or by using Link: <constraint-URI>; rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy" header on an HTTP response to a given Request-URI.
*****

That reads like a note, i.e., non-normative text to me. Do you see any requirements in there?

BTW, if it seems like I'm picky about separating out the MUST from the declaration of requirements, I am. I was there when we had to separate such admixture from 600+ pages of ODF and hope to spare others than experience. It's not really a maintainable approach.