In article <F5B1D471CB679CF8B803F0CE@PSB> you write: >Of course, one could modify/update 2026 to match the intent of >this I-D, but I assume that would be considered a much more >major step. While not wanting to derail the ongoing conversation, this topic is making me think that we have a lot of processes that we never change for little more reason than that we've never changed them. Here's two that this discussion makes me think of: There's the question of what authors to put on a bis document since the original authors may have lost interest or in some cases died. Academic papers often identify one or two of a long list of authors as the corresponding authors, to whom you write if you have questions or comments. The five author limit apparently dates from a desire that all of the listed authors be the corresponding ones, but that was when everyone was a lot younger. Even if we keep the limit at five, putting a star next to one or two of them wouldn't be that hard. More radically, the theory that RFCs never change dates from when they were on paper and nobody wanted to find all the copies and apply whiteout. While I don't think it would be a good idea to have different documents floating around all called, say, RFC 3514, we could call revised versions 3514.1 and 3514.2 like other SDOs do and the world wouldn't come to an end. Again I am not suggesting we stop thinking about this draft, but I do think we should try and recognize places where we are working around our processes rather than our processes working for us. R's, John
