> I agree with you only if the draft is a statement but IMHO it is not only > statement (its unclear practical statement), therefore, this document should > be informational and not BCP, do you agree? The difference, to me, is between saying: - We'd really like to tell people about this. - We're laying a foundation to do something in this space. So, how do I think this document will be *used?* As a starting point. I've recommended some specific thoughts on questions to draft authors to include in another email. I don't think these are the "final" questions, nor do I think they need to be included for this initial version to go to BCP -- so long as we understand this is a goal statement which will have more information added in the bis and update processes. Since our knowledge of this space will naturally grow over time, I suspect this document will change over time, just as id-nits, security requirements, and other such documents have. There might be a lot of other "better ways," to go about this -- start a WG, etc. -- but this is the immediately apparent vehicle for the moment. So given the choice of doing nothing, "because we don't have a detailed accounting of everything we'd like to do," or, "because this is political, rather than technical," and passing this document into BCP status so a conversation is started, and we think about the right direction from here -- I'd rather pass this document into BCP status so we can think about the right direction to go from here. Russ