On May 29, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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." Okay, I felt a bit embarrassed about having said this, so I went back and reviewed the justification for bringing this forth as an IETF document. The stated reason for publishing the document as an IETF document is that there is a regulatory requirement in Canada to implement something like this. I think that's really thin, and I as an IETF participant, hat off, I oppose the publication of this document. I think Joe did the right thing in registering the RRtype, and I think Joe should by all means publish this on his personal web site so that people who need to implement this because of the weird requirements of various regulatory bodies can be satisfied in a clean way. However, I think putting this forward as an IETF consensus document, or as an IETF document at all, does convey the wrong message.