RE: "De facto charter" proposed text

Mark,

My only comment is to whether the charter description should make reference
to our working rule of thumb, which was that we should define only features
required by 2778/2779 with the addition only of things necessary to make a
workable protocol, our so called "minimalist approach". This might answer a
host of questions about why X, Y, or Z wasn't included.

Regards,

Adrian.

On 22 May 2003 23:54, Mark Day wrote:
> Note that this is a slightly different question from whether the group
> *should* be trying to do something different.  That can be an interesting
> discussion, but one that will distract us from getting the documents and
> sensible evaluation criteria to the IESG.  We'd like to keep comments
> focused on whether we've accurately captured what the WG rough consensus
> direction has been.





  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]