> > 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@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
