Makes sense. That's essentially the recommended way to use SHOULD in 2026.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Avri Doria <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Very much support the draft and the idea of creating a BCP. > > Have also appreciated the discussion on opportunistic encryption, which I > consider akin to a holy grail. Been thinking about it in a DTN context for a > while, but don't feel like I ever got very far. > > I am, however, looking at another part of the text. I appreciate that the > requirements are a MUST and that reads well, but, doesn't including a > statement "Note that this is contingent on practicality" really downgrade it > to a SHOULD? > > I think that "really has to be sent in clear for a protocol to be able to > operate" is too hand wavy as a guideline. Perhaps the draft could go > deeper in the kinds of conditions that indicate that: > > a) it was really necessary - what are the reasonable conditions for necessity? > b) an indication of what practical actions have been taken to avoid this > insurmountable obstacle and a discussion of which particular requirements > could not be met. > c) a guideline that indications be given on how can these instances be > mitigated > > This could well be a clue to what sort of information is needed to meet the > requirement of explaining why the protocol does not fill the other > requirements for protecting private data. > > While I think that perhaps that I should go a little further breaking down > a-c above, Irealized I would not get this sent of for several weeks if I were > to try and go further and actually recommend text on a-c above. > > > avri > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
