Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 29-Apr-23 05:19, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Alexis Rossi <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > It seems like using the errata system would maybe be a more haphazard
>      > method of fixing broken links over time, since it relies on humans to
>      > notice the original link is dead, report that as an errata, and then
>      > another human to check and approve it. Unless the proposal is to have a
>      > bot that files errata when links die (and then there’s just one human
>      > step to approve)?
> 
> I think that this says more about how antique our errata management system
> is, than anything about the durability of the links :-)

Correct, but I think Ted's idea was to use the errata mechanism to notify the
stream and ask for approval/disapproval, not to say that the broken link
is an erratum as such. And yes, of course all of this should be robotic,
including the initial archiving at the time of RFC publication.

Yes to those who say that the RFC with approved errata applied should be
the go-to version. The "text will never change" version needs to be kept
for the lawyers, but normal RFC users should see the fixed version.

      Brian