I will go whichever way my bishop decides. My understanding is that the Holy See is leaving that decision to the local ordinary for now.
I would guess they will take another look at it in about 20 years or so, and set some rule then.
If it really was once a pert of baptism, then we should probably follow the Orthodox and Eastern practice, and confirm infants.
On the other hand, if it was originally considered part of the bishop's job to confirm at the time of baptism, then preserving it as the bishop's responsibility, even if it has to be delayed some, would be the way to go.
I don't have a horse in this race.
With so many roman catholics leaving the faith or just not participating anymore I would believe the vast majority are catholics who were indoctrinated into the faith from infancy.
Adults who determine for themselves after experiencing what the world has to offer, looking into various religions as to what they personally believe, and joining as example the catholic church, I would believe they would most often be stronger catholics than those indoctrinated from infancy?
To me adult baptisms and confirmations would serve a much better purpose to the believer, than current "assembly line baptisms" when a child reaches the age of a few months old and automatically taken to the church to have this service performed, that does only one thing at this time, makes the family happy to keep the tradition going.
I would believe most non practicing catholics on this forum including myself were indoctrinated into the faith, not ones who found the faith on their own as adults.
The Kennedy family members must adhere to their family traditions. You must be a catholic, you must be a democrat, or you become shunned, an outsider to them.