--On Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:24 -0700 Bill McQuillan
<McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
As I have understood it, the intent was to move what can be
moved without controversy and then to come back, with a
recharter, and figure out what, if anything, should be done
next. So, if the case you describe is detected, that
specification would not be a YAM candidate, at least under the
initial charter.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf