Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net> writes:
Eric,
Yes, I appreciate that it's intentional. And indeed, communities
very often want things to remain unchanged when they bring them
to IETF. I'm saying that it's not appropriate to nail that down
in the charter.
I'm sorry. I think you missed my point about the consensus on the
charter wording being the result of TWO rounds of discussion on the
open, IETF-related mailing list.
So the issue does not warrant marginalization as merely being due to
the original constituency.
I heard objections to this at the Paris IETF and we're in in the
middle of a formal consensus call now and I'm objecting to the
proposed wording at this time. I don't see a procedural problem
with that. That's why we have consensus calls.
My point is that you need to justify changing the wording based on
demonstrable need (that develops consensus) rather than on abstract
principle,. Any of the possible choices for permitting or prohibiting
incompatibility might have a reasonable basis.
Obviously, I don't agree with this.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org