Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Robert/John -

I have posted a new version which addresses this issue.
I hope this clears the discussion.

I also (as promised) made the same change to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis/ and posted a new version of that document.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:00 PM
> To: Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>; John Scudder
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01
> 
> John -
> 
> The solution you propose is fine with me.
> I will update it in the next version.
> As we are still waiting for a few reviews I will wait a bit in case other changes
> are needed.
> 
> I will do the same to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-
> rfc8920bis/ as well.
> 
>    Les
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:18 AM
> > To: John Scudder <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; last-
> [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01
> >
> >
> > On 5/3/23 1:12 PM, John Scudder wrote:
> > >> On May 3, 2023, at 11:04 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 2) Please reconsider the link to the mailarchive in the RFC. Put it in the
> > >>> shepherd writeup or in the history in the datatracker as a comment
> > (chairs
> > >>> can
> > >>> do this). Otherwise it adds to the list of URLs that we have to keep
> alive
> > >>> forever.
> > >> [LES:] I am open to whatever the chairs/AD think is appropriate. But
> very
> > few people actually look at the shepherd writeup or Datatracker history.
> > Having it in the document provides context for those readers who are
> > curious as to why the bis changes were made. I don’t think it would be as
> > effective if it were removed from the document.
> > >> I take your point that the URL may someday become stale - but if it did
> > that would apply to the other locations as well.
> > >> The section in which it appears is informational only - it is not a
> normative
> > part of the document - so I am inclined to leave it as is.
> > >> But again, happy to follow consensus on this.
> > > Yeah, I don’t see how adding another layer of indirection makes the
> > problem go away. Perhaps it would be reasonable, though, to change the
> > reference from a bare URL, presented inline, to an Informative reference,
> to
> > the effect of
> > >
> > > 	[LSR-MAIL] IETF LSR Mailing List Archive, Tue, 15 June 2021 15:25 UTC,
> > "[Lsr] Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920”, and follow-up messages.
> > >
> > > I don’t know if there is a standard style for this kind of reference, but it
> > seems like it might be a cleaner solution. It doesn’t provide one-click access
> > to the mailing list thread, but neither do some other references, and it
> > should be easy enough for anyone familiar with our mailing list archives or
> > frankly, even anyone who knows how to use a search engine. Also,
> ironically
> > the bare URL doesn’t provide one-click access either, because of how it’s
> > line-broken in the txt rendering.
> > >
> > > Robert, Les, would that approach work for both of you?
> > Yes.
> > >
> > > —John