On May 29, 2013, at 5:51 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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."