[Ballot discuss]
Revised (I think this might just be a ctrl-x/ctrl-v issue but was asked to provide a little more rationale on my discuss)

The 2nd to last paragraph in this document:

It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security
features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410],
Section 8, including full support for the SNMPv3
cryptographic mechanisms (for authentication and privacy).

differs somewhat from what I thought was last agreed with the MIB doctors (and what's in RFC 6779):

Implementations SHOULD provide the security features
described by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]),
and implementations claiming compliance to the SNMPv3
standard MUST include full support for authentication
and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM)
[RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826].
Implementations MAY also provide support for the
Transport Security Model (TSM) [RFC5591] in combination
with a secure transport such as SSH [RFC5592] or TLS/DTLS
[RFC6353].

My primary issue here is that a requirement to "consider" is not the same an MTI (mandatory to implement). Further, the RFC 3414 mechanisms referred to in RFC 3410 for authentication are HMAC-based and for privacy are CBC-DES-based. Don't really have a problem with the authentication protocols (see RFC 6151 and 6194) but I do have a really big problem with the CBC-DES-based privacy mechanism. The reworded boiler plate takes in to account the AES-based privacy mechanism RFC 3414 refers to as a draft. I can not believe you'd really use a DES-based mechanism instead of the AES-based mechanism and if you are I'd like to see some text about that.

The bit about the TSM is a nod to reality about how the data will be gathered. I'm guessing here but I suspect that SSH is used with the router so you could just say SSH is required as opposed to the current wishy washy one or the approach in the new boiler plate.