Hi. Borrowing from several other notes and comments, it seems to me that we have three interlocking issues that keep recurring and producing long discussions. They are by no means independent of this particular draft, but seem to be becoming generic. (1) Are we willing to publish (or even standardize) specs whose nature is to provide a vehicle for making privacy-sensitive information public? The arguments against doing so seem obvious. The arguments for doing so include "those who claim they need this will do it anyway so we are better off publishing a spec that will at least reduce interoperability side-effects and permit spelling out the issues as "privacy considerations" or security ones. (2) Is turning hardware identifiers (physical-layer objects) into applications or user level identifiers an acceptable idea? Are DNS RRTYPEs that map application-level identifiers into other identifiers that can loop back through the DNS without guarantees that the process will terminate part of the same problem or a different one? (3) Do either of the above answers change if the proposal comes from another SDO or a major industry group? I don't know the answers, but I'm pretty sure that trying to address each of these issues separately every time a new protocol, RRTYPE, or URN (or URI) type comes along that interacts with one of them is not the way. It seems to me that we ought to have something along the lines of RFC 1984 in our future and that a plenary discussion might be a useful first step. I don't suppose the IAB or IESG would be willing to postpone or push something out of the announced agendas to allow for that discussion, which, given this Last Call and the recent one over RRTYPs would seem to be critical path. Any volunteers to get in front of the mic lines? john