IMO, either term will do fine in this context. If one or the other results in a prolonged discussion within the WG that hinges on this that the Chair can't resolve, we've got bigger issues.
Let's not let this issue wrap around the axle and slow things down. My $0.02, Trent On 6/25/14 9:18 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Dave Crocker writes: > > > Well, the language I offered was also produced from pickiness. In > > reaction to a possible misunderstanding of the earlier draft > > charter text. > > "Incremental version" is not a "term of art", then? (That occurred to > me after hitting send.) > > Surely this terminological problem (foreseeing updates to another WG's > -- or external body's -- in-progress specification, but not stepping > on their toes) has been encountered by working groups before? > > (If nobody has examples off hand, I'll go research other charters for > similar language, no reply necessary.) > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
