On 07/20/2013 04:31 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, July 20, 2013 15:51 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
...
But, even if the outcome wasn't a BCP along the lines
I'd prefer, I think such a beast would still be worth
having if it meant we could avoid a whole lot of these
kinds of similar discussions on individual drafts.
That was exactly what I was thinking.
I think the security analogy is a combination of BCP 61 (RFC
3365) and RFC 1984. That is a quibble but relates to the
question of whether draft-iab-privacy-considerations is
sufficient. I think it is necessary, but not sufficient. The
other piece would be a fairly clear and ideally consensus,
statement about what we do and do not intend to do and why.
Fully agree. I do hope we get this discussion at the mic in
Berlin. (Or if some folks are already interested in working
on this just send me a mail.)
If someone felt this whole thing was a bad plan, now'd also
be a good time to hear about that (and why). Though of course
there'd be loads more opportunities for that too.
S.
IMO, the only want to make progress on avoiding these similar
discussions on individual drafts would be to develop such a
consensus and focus the discussions on it.
john