Ted Hardie wrote:
I would be happy with the text that was used in the xmpp charter:
Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible changes to the
basis specifications will be acceptable if the working group
determines that the changes are required to meet the group's
technical objectives and the group clearly documents the reasons
for making them.
I agree with Tony on the benefits of re-using this language, and it certainly
works for me.
Then it sounds like we have some text that we can compromise on. Jim
Fenton has already said that this text covers his concerns about as well
as what we had, Stephen Farrell has accepted it, and now I'm weighing in.
I suggest that the IESG replace that paragraph in the proposed DKIM
charter with the paragraph above, and that we move on from this topic
to any others that need to be dealt with.
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology
Ietf mailing list