On 1/7/2014 8:52 AM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
I find this document to be too vague to function properly as a BCP, and I don't
think we have a sufficient understanding of the tradeoffs involved in making
pervasive monitoring more difficult to write a proper BCP at the present time.
And if anything, hasty and ill-considered changes may make monitoring easier,
not harder.
I think the course advocated by Dave Crocker is the correct one: Publish this
as an informational policy statement, and then work through the policy on
subsequent specifications. Then, once we believe we have a sufficient grasp of
how this actually plays out, write a BCP. (Dave, I think this summarizes your
position, but if not, apologies for getting it wrong.)
I've advocated Experimental, though I've thought Informational would
also be ok. On further reflection from people's comment, I now think
Informational would be the sufficient and safer choice.
The more important issue is that the draft does usefully introduce the
topic of PM to IETF work.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net