> If an existing protocol implementation is conforming to the Draft Standard > version of the protocol specification, it must also be conforming to the > resulting Full Standard version. Hence, specification changes that > create a violation of this requirement are out of scope of the working > group charter. This part of the charter worries me. It presumes that no Draft Standard can be ambiguous! On the off chance that a Draft Standard *is* ambiguous in some way that has caused two implementations to be non-interoperable, but arguably conforming, it seems that the WG must drop the Standard from consideration without any chance of some engineering judgement (or even horse-trading) to get the implementations to become interoperable and to resolve the ambiguity. OTOH, maybe that WAS the intent of the charter. -- Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf