You MUST listen to RFC 2119

With thanks to Ruth for sharing this with me:

…

RFC 2119 establishes language around requirement levels. Terms like “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “SHOULD”, and “SHOULD NOT” are helpful when coordinating with engineers. I reference it a lot for work, as I create a lot of accessible component specifications.

Because of this familiarity—and because I’m an ass—I fired back in Discord:

I want to hire a voice actor to read 2119 in the most over the top, passive-aggressive way possible
wait, this is an achievable goal oh no

It turns out you can just pay people to do things.

I found a voice actor and hired them with the task of “Reading this very dry technical document in the most over-the-top sarcastic, passive-aggressive, condescending way possible. Like, if you think it’s too much, take that feeling, ignore it, and crank things up one more notch.”

…

RFC 2119 is one of few RFCs I can identify by number alone, too. That and RFCs 1945 and 1866, for some reason, and RFC 2822 (and I guess, by proxy, 822) because I’ve had to implement its shitty date format more times than I’d like to count.

But anyway: if you’ve ever wanted to hear a (sarcastic, passive aggressive) dramatic reading of RFC 2119, Eric – and the actor he found – have got you covered!