On 07/20/2013 04:31 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Saturday, July 20, 2013 15:51 +0100 Stephen Farrell > <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ... >> But, even if the outcome wasn't a BCP along the lines >> I'd prefer, I think such a beast would still be worth >> having if it meant we could avoid a whole lot of these >> kinds of similar discussions on individual drafts. > > That was exactly what I was thinking. > > I think the security analogy is a combination of BCP 61 (RFC > 3365) and RFC 1984. That is a quibble but relates to the > question of whether draft-iab-privacy-considerations is > sufficient. I think it is necessary, but not sufficient. The > other piece would be a fairly clear and ideally consensus, > statement about what we do and do not intend to do and why. Fully agree. I do hope we get this discussion at the mic in Berlin. (Or if some folks are already interested in working on this just send me a mail.) If someone felt this whole thing was a bad plan, now'd also be a good time to hear about that (and why). Though of course there'd be loads more opportunities for that too. S. > IMO, the only want to make progress on avoiding these similar > discussions on individual drafts would be to develop such a > consensus and focus the discussions on it. > > john > > > >