Re: WG Review: Yet Another Mail (yam)

[Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP at pobox.com>]

> 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 at pobox.com>