Since we seem to be re-hashing some of the issues discussed during WGLC of this draft: I don't agree that this draft is harmless: I think it's an attractive nuisance. Given that we already have an RIR which makes people sign a non-disclosure agreement (!) to get a copy of their trust anchor locator, it's not all that far-fetched to imagine that same RIR adding another contractual requirement in which the user of their trust anchor locator is also made to promise that they will perform additional checks outside the core specification using the URI specified in the policy qualifier. The draft doesn't rule this out, it just says that the draft itself adds no such processing requirements. I do not find this particularly reassuring. That said, the RIR in question has already demonstrated that they don't need policy qualifiers to impose whacky restrictions outside the scope of the protocol architecture, so denying them use of this policy qualifier hack wouldn't gain the user community all that much.