Subject: Re: [Asrg] Final statement

From: David Nicol <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:05:03 -0500

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Really technical important things got a "SHOULD" OR "RECOMMENDED" while a
> the content of a policy (if there is a payment option or not) got a "MUST
> NOT"
>

I'm inspired to draft a BCP on BCP interpretation, which would include, but
not be limited to

"advice in BCP documents MUST NOT be misinterpreted as anything other than
opinion"

unfortunately the margins of this e-mail are too small ...