Re: Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?

It appears that John C Klensin  <[email protected]> said:
>> But, yeah.  The way to address a modest change is with a
>> modest effort.
>
>And I await a description --other than the errata signpost idea
>mentioned above-- as to how to make a change in this area with a
>modest effort, presumably one about which IETF consensus can be
>asserted but that does not require an I-D, notification of (and
>discussion including) as many of those who participated in the
>EAI effort as were still interested, IETF Last Call, etc.

One of the things on my long list as sort-of-RFC-editor is a way to do
incremental updates to RFCs, likely with version numbers, so we only have
to reapprove the sections that have changed.

I still don't think it's worth opening up RFC 6531 unless we have a lot more to change.