I think this draft is in a good state and says what needs to be said. One point is that, assuming we conclude that it should not be a BCP, this should probably be mentioned, for example in section 5. RFC 2050 contains an IESG note explaining why it was published as a BCP; it would be logical for the replacement to explain why it isn't. IMHO, it is RFC 2860 that makes BCP status inappropriate.
Nit: there are numerous unused references (even RFC 2050 itself). Regards Brian Carpenter
