I'm generally comfortable with this charter, but not really with this.
"necessary for the success of the specifications" seems like a very
high bar to clear. While I appreciate that there's a desire by many members
of the WG to avoid making incompatible changes (hence this language),
to the extent to which that desire reflects consensus, those
changes won't be made anyway. I don't believe it's appropriate to
rule discussion of changes which might be important but not
"necesssary" out of scope in the charter.
Eric,
The logic of "to the extent to which that desire reflects consensus, those
changes won't be made anyway" leads directly to having no charter at all. It
says that consensus-of-the-moment is the only concern and I suspect that
that is not what you mean.
Whether to preserve previous work -- and how much of it to preserve -- is a
very basic decision, when previous work is handed over to the IETF. There
have been TWO, extensive rounds of discussion and consensus on the current
set of words, on the open mailing list.
You are correct that the current wording specifies a high bar. That is
entirely intentional. This is version 3 (or 4, depending how you count) of
this work, with quite a bit of current email using existing work. (Small
number of installations, but some of them are very high volume.)
Further, your objection to the current language appears to be entirely
theoretical, since you are not putting forward any specific work that you
feel is "important" but would not rise to the level of "necessary for the
success of the specifications".
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org