> It means that, if the IETF winds up having consensus to say so, we agree that > document authors and working groups ought to consider the problem of > pervasive surveillance: that considering these issues is documented best > practice in the IETF. Precisely. Consider the alternative. In a year, we have a draft on the table that seriously compromises privacy, or opens a huge door to surveillance. We can point to an informational about why such a draft needs work, an experimental about why such a draft needs work, or a BCP. Which one is the draft authors going to take seriously, or pay attention to? "You really want me to change my draft completely to meet the demands of an experimental draft? Since when do we care about experimentals and informationals?" IMHO, this draft, as it sits, explains the problem, leaves process questions open to discussion, and yet says -- we should be seriously thinking about this. Russ