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.
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".
That's not a safe conclusion to draw. It's simply that the
procedure question is what's appropriate during the discussion
of the charter.
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.
Since the current wording has gone through extensive discussion, the burden
of effecting change is usually on the person requesting it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org