My reaction is also to ask "Why?" Security and privacy involve trade-offs where various costs (including operational difficulty) are weighed against the benefits, such as protecting information from unauthorized disclosure or modification. So, I'd suggest that a blanket statement isn't a good idea, but rather, a service-by-service decision should be made. For example, XMPP and document submission may justify requiring encryption while email and document retrieval might not.
Bingo. There's a perfectly reasonable case to be made for protecting any sort of authorization/authentication exchange and not allowing alternatives. But in the case of document distribution, our primary goal should be to insure maximum availability and access to the information we provide, including to those who are unable to whatever reason to use protected services. And yes, I'm aware of the argument that access to certain standards, especially ones themselves having to do with security, might be problematic to folks living under some repressive regime or other. I don't buy it, mostly because that level of paranoia is going to regard any sort of access to IETF materials whatsoever as a red flag, especially it was conducted over TLS/SSL. Ned