Such documents have usually come either as IESG / IAB
authored/sponsored BCPs. Indeed, BCP 95 was just such a
document. WGs have been (should be?) for technical activities
related to specifying how the Internet works.
<minirant>Technical WGs at least have the possibility of
achieving consensus based on the analysis of tradeoffs of hard
facts and good analysis. A "WG" such as TERM may fail of
achieving even WG consensus, let alone community consensus
(especially given the current ongoing discussions) and there
will be no fall back to fact analysis possible. I can't see
any way an appeal could be managed in those circumstances and I
strongly suggest we do not try to place this in the WG
model.</minirant>
Since the proposed charter for Term will effect more than just
the standards process (e.g. it potentially effects all of the
current and future RFC streams), it would appear this should be
handled either as an IAB activity (either authored, or referred
to a workshop), or deferred until the RFCED group completes its
work and can have this assigned as a work item.
My first preference is to do this as an IAB Workshop report
with no BCP tag and with as dispassionate an analysis and output
language as possible. E.g. explanatory language vs directive.
Mike
