Tony,
If no one is willing to do the testing necessary to find and generate an
errata list, the spec should automatically become Historic. (Pick a time
span, say 2 years.) So the burden then is laid on updating the errata
list in order for the spec to remain a standard. (There would be an
opportunity for an empty errata to be created only if there is interop
experience to back it up and only after a given time has elapsed.) If
people are interested in the standard, they should be willing to do the
minor amount of work to keep it from becoming Historic.
We are in this position because we are not today documenting existing
practice, having not properly understood the lack of desire to do what
you class as "minor amount of work". If the work truly is minor, then
again I have no problem with this approach, as it's actually a two step
approach that hides behind the word Historic. But let us not get
ourselves into a position where we're marking widely used specs Historic
left and right simply because we couldn't get someone to jump through hoops.
And I think we're at the point where I'm violating my own rule. There
is no concrete proposal here that I can argue in favor of or oppose, so
I think I'd better shut up and wait for one.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf