IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Tue, 25 April 2023 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAB8C1519B8 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b="rwl62tf5"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="FkgSzNvO"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xFI3IBxNRTOG for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78732C1516E3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2795C0140 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 19:48:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap41 ([10.202.2.91]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Apr 2023 19:48:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1682466499; x=1682552899; bh=6Q GTGcjVT2q4ns+/RuLNMfeHbWr8AQ+ZPE03ca9rAoc=; b=rwl62tf5C+NUsqnnPr h0TvfWyCHmV/IdieUXny1hvA360DfarA5TKPu4gGySGk2c/MgLED2tBku3UrTsl+ de/SuWz4sTfKvGoKcxyiuc42zgTnn8srYN+9OSIGrde9iPJQ0MrMUiCDLrNjJI+F gQlr9HTWWWdxswgwsWhUWHr1dgXHVTukxqdZTwnZHO0nlJODSTe7PxrMKGw969on DyuCQg0YZQcgrEzEeJeZ/4UvP7ejp3klXuGSiyS1HiZnq2eu+czgao05kSEcnhDq J5YqkxeQtu4UscBbLLFCG4QUzpamyQr4RfxaqCJwpb/K2aH3zq/8DeK15hPhZl36 7y7w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1682466499; x=1682552899; bh=6QGTGcjVT2q4n s+/RuLNMfeHbWr8AQ+ZPE03ca9rAoc=; b=FkgSzNvOJniXG0McqSSGjNrPQmvVF X0Jr23eTluoczZvpikR/6AXa5bd8tK2t0HNCgB5KNos04glAmcPwwuqBhz94Eh34 rjHC3XehJVc2+lTR01jHYVuDuMi2AH8GXkWblTDPkYh4dEMZERIUwUHO1mmRRc0L 3YNmdERghwzg0FFZhmFg6fVCj9uIQGeFDIYQYKGEf0g0j4gW0Z24E3uMYEmVsgGB 3mL6OXgCtL0dJAWk+GX9l4nLNpYgelB6xAQAgY6/SDlYGcc8/73vldJMmGVgS/KR 9uTKi8/evF1hAiHRy3JtffMe6azo7Bi4q2bJ6niRLIkZHLsm7u/StM4wg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:w2ZIZLw0fdNCySljainUoY3gLyQUjsp9HREj_qLKNwz7vaSuaLNTSQ> <xme:w2ZIZDR49nbl7RvCAW3ZxMW1hmRYQG64QwYZc_KYLPr7tJGBkZWU17yOqjWPQzvYU UlmaCZEdmbsOGXWrvI>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedufedgvdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeugeejjeffgfduheejgf eftdeigeetjeeghfduvdefgeeuffehleffvefhkeethfenucffohhmrghinheprhhftgdq vgguihhtohhrrdhorhhgpdhivghtfhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:w2ZIZFU-QPbqiOKefQycWDfda4ES3jYtZ-F0bJ9mk0o4en9ZdQ3ugg> <xmx:w2ZIZFhUmgL08LXGtDyA8_qsC-VESJ6Usj6S7H73r6AVjBumbDupew> <xmx:w2ZIZNC94BAQzSb_rpvNWXGND_gttHujqfYUh9N0y-ZJM5Pw0o6JJg> <xmx:w2ZIZAP7YPaukENEA1eFm_d8blIcoOJrndZbneFnPoDfQvI7ZPI5vA>
Feedback-ID: ic129442d:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 054C8234007B; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 19:48:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-374-g72c94f7a42-fm-20230417.001-g72c94f7a
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <48de4d92-e279-4c26-ab3c-15dd854b56f8@betaapp.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOevOj8cWY7dacWxzwZS82+iAjf1p+DZWF=7WZ9JydnrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E024D9AC-2B92-4720-9713-519592D2362B@rfc-editor.org> <30c30c2f-4e96-560a-73dd-a51ba8d04714@comcast.net> <771B7586-FFBB-49E4-9B99-5578863FBD8B@rfc-editor.org> <CABcZeBOevOj8cWY7dacWxzwZS82+iAjf1p+DZWF=7WZ9JydnrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:47:58 +1000
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/4WxH4Gu3UXcw6RV-yvLoN8xpOOo>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:48:26 -0000

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, at 09:41, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think the RPC could *probably* choose to publish a separate version 
> that had archival links
> on its own, but I think the default version would again be a question 
> for the RSWG.

If this were a question of publishing, maybe RSWG has a role to play.  However, we don't object to different renderings and this might not be too far from that.  That is, you might make HTML available that had two links for some references (canonical plus archival) maybe with strikethrough styling on broken links.

I don't think that we are in a position to set policy there.  Any more than we are in a position to set policy on what decorations or styling are added in renderings.  The metadata header on rfc-editor.org or the sidebar on datatracker.ietf.org are examples of "decoration" along these lines.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email