On May 29, 2013, at 5:51 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Here's what I would be told: Scenario a and Scenario b do not have privacy
implications as they have been reviewed by a respected organization in
Canada. I would also be told that there is an Office of the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada which is diligent [1]. I will also be told that all
this has been reviewed diligently by highly respected people in the Internet
Engineering Task Force.
I didn't say that I support the draft; just what I think could be done to
somewhat mitigate its scope. My personal (non-hat) feeling about the draft is
that if there is something good that will result from documenting these
RRtypes, then the draft is worth doing, but if there is no good outcome other
than "we documented it," then the document shouldn't be published. I haven't
been following the discussion closely enough to know what good outcome is
anticipated as a result of publishing this document.
I hope the responsible AD for this document will not count me as participating
in the consensus on this document; it was not my intention in making the
suggestion I made to indicate that I favor publishing the document. Based on
the extent to which I _have_ followed the discussion, my position on the
document could best be characterized as "trepidatious semi-neutrality, leaning
towards opposition."