On 1/7/2014 8:52 AM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I find this document to be too vague to function properly as a BCP, and I don't think we have a sufficient understanding of the tradeoffs involved in making pervasive monitoring more difficult to write a proper BCP at the present time. And if anything, hasty and ill-considered changes may make monitoring easier, not harder. I think the course advocated by Dave Crocker is the correct one: Publish this as an informational policy statement, and then work through the policy on subsequent specifications. Then, once we believe we have a sufficient grasp of how this actually plays out, write a BCP. (Dave, I think this summarizes your position, but if not, apologies for getting it wrong.)
I've advocated Experimental, though I've thought Informational would also be ok. On further reflection from people's comment, I now think Informational would be the sufficient and safer choice.
The more important issue is that the draft does usefully introduce the topic of PM to IETF work.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net