On Wed, Dec 11, 2024, at 12:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't think we can do this until Section 2.2 of RFC 2026 has been > fairly comprehensively rewritten.
Paul and I proposed exactly that, in the draft you cited. An attempt was made to align the statements and documentation with reality, as opposed to the stories we make up about people not deploying code based on I-Ds: https://martinthomson.github.io/no-expiry/draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry.html#section-2.1 We did not propose that the scary note Rich mentioned be removed or altered. Of course it will be ignored, just as it has always been, but we were looking to make a surgical change so it didn't seem worth the effort. We can further recommend changes to that note if there is appetite for change. The main problem is the strong reaction from several people about the change. The archives of no-draft-exp...@ietf.org tell a pretty grim tale of how this institution is incapable of implementing the most trivial change. We also have draft-levine-iduse in the mix (which uses different words, but basically makes exactly the same proposal). _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
