Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00

[Rob Austein <[e-mail]>]

As the authors of this I-D already know, I had essentially the same
concerns as Tim, for the same reason: as the implementor of a
validation engine, I don't want to have to deal with whacky special
processing to support somebody else's lawyers.

I do not support publication of this document as an RFC, although I am
willing to stand aside of the WG achieves rough consensus that this
change is necessary.

My main reason for not supporting it is that, even with the text in
the I-D, this still looks like an attractive nuisance.  Given that we
already have an RIR which makes people sign an NDA to get a copy of
their TAL, it is not all that far-fetched to imagine that same RIR
adding a contractual requirement that one also promise to do
additional checks outside the core specification using this URI.  The
text currently in the I-D doesn't rule this out, it just says that the
I-D itself adds no such requirements.  Not terribly reassuring.