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