On Feb 18, 2017, at 6:59 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is technically true, but it's worth pointing out that working group charters are approved first by the IETF, and only _then_ by the IESG. If the IESG decides that the working group charter is much broader than the IETF agreed it is, then that is a process failure. In practice the IETF often leaves these issues entirely to the IESG, so in practice this isn't necessarily a problem, but in principle it is, and you can't know whether the IETF said nothing about a charter because we agreed with the scope, or because we didn't look at it; in the former case, the IETF actually does have a position on the scope of the charter—it's just unstated, because it agrees with what was proposed. Going beyond that scope would definitely be a process failure. |