As I argued on the DKIM working group list, I think this text is a bad
idea. Part of IETF having change control of a specification is having
the ability to make changes, and the bar of "necessary to the success of
the specification" is way too high for that. Note that I'm not
suggesting that the WG shouldn't consider compatibility, merely that it
shouldn't be effectively prohibited by charter from making incompatible
improvements.
I hear you, Eric, and, yes, we've all discussed this at length before.
There are people with opinions at both extremes on this (from "we must
leave that paragraph unchanged" to "we must remove that paragraph
completely"). For my part, as the current editor of the charter, I'm
happy with a change in the text if we can get consensus on some text
that will make both sides at least somewhat happy (or perhaps I should
say "somewhat less unhappy").
Consensus on the charter would of course be a good thing, but it's not a
necessary condition. The job of the charter is to appropriately direct
and focus the group's work, not to make everyone happy.
Also, the WG may draft a charter, but the charter isn't something that
has to be settled on my the WG.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf