In this instance, the whole point of the charter was to reach a
direction within the working group that has broad architectural impact
and then to review that decision with the community. So, I think
Eliot and Steve's concerns are directly tied to the chartering event.
Sam, thanks for pursuing this. I had misunderstood the timeline, and thought
that Eliot was raising a post-chartering issue.
As we seem to agree, such issues do arise in working groups, so the question of
seeking broad review of major decisions DURING the wg process is a valid issue,
albeit apparently not this time.
My own, very strong bias on situations like the current one, certainly is to
make a charter as precise and complete as possible. The more a charter can
state basic assumptions and constraints, the better, from what I have seen.
Including conceptual and architectural impacts (or issues) can only be helpful.
--
d/
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf