In addition, experience has shown a number of real or perceived
defects or inadequacies with the protocol.
Hold on. Is the WG really supposed to work on "perceived" defects?
Either these defects are real or they are not. If they are not real,
for instance, if they are FUD (this is quite common in the IDN arena),
they should *not* be addressed by the WG.
Right. But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we
have only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a
particular issue is really a defect. Understanding which specific issues
have to be fixed is typically WG work in a bis spec effort. And
obviously, if a particular issue is mistakenly believed to be a problem,
some additional explanation in the final spec may be useful to reduce
IETF mailing list