Re: [ietf-privacy] New Version Notification for draft-cooper-ietf-privacy-requirements-00.txt

Makes sense.  That's essentially the recommended way to use SHOULD in 2026.

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> 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
> ietf-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy