It means that, if the IETF winds up having consensus to say so, we agree
that
document authors and working groups ought to consider the problem of
pervasive surveillance: that considering these issues is documented best
practice in the IETF.
Precisely.
Consider the alternative. In a year, we have a draft on the table that
seriously compromises privacy, or opens a huge door to surveillance. We can
point to an informational about why such a draft needs work, an experimental
about why such a draft needs work, or a BCP. Which one is the draft authors
going to take seriously, or pay attention to? "You really want me to change
my draft completely to meet the demands of an experimental draft? Since when
do we care about experimentals and informationals?"
IMHO, this draft, as it sits, explains the problem, leaves process questions
open to discussion, and yet says -- we should be seriously thinking about
this.
Russ