> I see it the other way round. If the charter can be specific, it should > be, to keep the subsequent discussion focussed on the more contentious > areas. Based on the > post-Vancouver discussion, I see no alternative > to including <PRI> and if that is the case, then we should nail that > down now. > > I am, implicitly, agreeing with Rainer's list of 10 items; if we can > agree a charter, then the items he says need discussing are the ones > we then focus on, leaving the rest of -15 unchanged..
We don't re-charter every time that there is a disagreement on focus, just when we need to change direction. Tieing the charter down to details will require us to change it when details change. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
