Avoid claiming that we will signal receipt and conformance

[dkg]

From discussion on list, i think:

• no one has asked for a mechanism to signal that the advertised application limit was actually received ("signal their receipt")

• some folks think it might be useful for an endpoint to signal to the network that they are capable of receiving application limits.

• there is very little consensus around what it would even mean to signal intent to conform to the limits, especially if the limits aren't even known at the time of signalling.

So this change to the charter tries to avoid opting into things that no one has asked for, or coupling things together when only one of them might be meaningful or necessary.

[mjoras]

@dkg @martinthomson on further reflection, I think we can go even further here and remove the conformance language entirely. This PR while getting there I think muddles the language a little bit, and I've proposed #108 as an alternative.

[ihlar]

Closed as it is deemed sufficiently handled by #108