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

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

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]; [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