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

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

> 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? 

—John