--On Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:24 -0700 Bill McQuillan
If an existing protocol implementation is conforming to the
Draft Standard version of the protocol specification, it must
also be conforming to the resulting Full Standard version.
Hence, specification changes that create a violation of this
requirement are out of scope of the working group charter.
This part of the charter worries me. It presumes that no Draft
Standard can be ambiguous!
On the off chance that a Draft Standard *is* ambiguous in some
way that has caused two implementations to be
non-interoperable, but arguably conforming, it seems that the
WG must drop the Standard from consideration without any
chance of some engineering judgement (or even horse-trading) to
get the implementations to become interoperable and to resolve
OTOH, maybe that WAS the intent of the charter.
As I have understood it, the intent was to move what can be
moved without controversy and then to come back, with a
recharter, and figure out what, if anything, should be done
next. So, if the case you describe is detected, that
specification would not be a YAM candidate, at least under the
Ietf mailing list