Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 02 May 2023 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158EAC1519BF; Tue, 2 May 2023 02:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.094
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.094 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DcKE_d36NCmR; Tue, 2 May 2023 02:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C72BC14CE2F; Tue, 2 May 2023 02:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-50bc394919cso3642621a12.2; Tue, 02 May 2023 02:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1683018767; x=1685610767; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gta6Ui4f/SduD6VsvX7XDfZyKqujG5o3UuiguZqnMlU=; b=DeL71VEhdCNbXJzH/7HZh+x085oMmFm4pFiFKVbS8cnttk3SLeSkJwm6ND95299wPw c12rLxjh/+bxQ60r7dA7aKwu+u0QxKsPPGQ/UwcLiyovrBI2s4L+ZNTaTtGNDaSWc1tB vEXk7uBlW3gTmEicWLLD2KPpx3iHBqBsYNw3Mz2ypmN2GL/8cgI3iqu/xnd3yNydmU7Q yX4kV00v3b2E+FHo1zZEHK8sS2ZknV0V6Qge772Y4KG8A07sXWd687ibWUFvZ54qsQGG GTVzF/mEogSUJxScUiRCc5us8PKnPWA/Tuuzz4MQU1wBMbNyCTGNh0OkTXGKtUwXjuwv ETdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1683018767; x=1685610767; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=gta6Ui4f/SduD6VsvX7XDfZyKqujG5o3UuiguZqnMlU=; b=jFCoRjV3I4Pz/kR33pBxaKy8HJSxFoOuD3vUpz/40+HaZTffK85S73M75w/Lf+iR3z Ytmvfbjfj0tJA9QmoUfoSsuCifDtxeH5QeUUAiGinOZAzc9gfHuMZfp4iBHVNohtOt7C yPvrZEaWBS8nyGGipoH2/XU2DHICH5+CWNDMVo+yQSafo3XDoUxiFdowbZQQad+/WUci rZt7Dgo8RED5CH1ddpE+QrriWHQF6e5nTg3h2fImTfIFexVwg5RQF+heDRNNRhwAJW0N CFvl4rBldgMSWJ83onG7qLUVo/7ALUdS/Sp3RUXbRBSDgW5XOuRNucfGxkJsTswS0zPJ ysZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyuA7iq/lR7e8P0PNd8uig1t4MWidFy0C+65ZsvTE5n2JAjB/lk LJcnn/rmTgtJ2+AxJkogkQwXK+ocPEDi+gkwjyY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6Qi6ES/cvb95at9DflBnhzh1OqqbeGiH3vmf0DSV7BV/9L2HTfqowc4u48tIWS4ZqIbRaMUW40Gq0Y/ntZ2DI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:da8d:b0:94e:4586:f135 with SMTP id xh13-20020a170906da8d00b0094e4586f135mr14973689ejb.6.1683018767182; Tue, 02 May 2023 02:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <796.1682529129@localhost> <> <> <31200.1682702389@localhost> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 10:12:20 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Cc: Alexis Rossi <>, Brian E Carpenter <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4afc305fab257d3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 09:12:54 -0000

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:50 PM Stephen Farrell <>

> Hiya,
> On 01/05/2023 20:27, Alexis Rossi wrote:
> > The main down side, if I understand correctly, of using the errata
> > system as the mechanism is that only one version of the RFC will have
> > archived links when something breaks (the html with inline errata).
> I'd argue that the current errata system is fairly useless
> in general, so the biggest downside of building on that is
> perpetuating that system.

Be of good cheer: here is a quote from Sandy Ginoza to the WG chair's list:

"We are currently working on modernizing the RPC’s full set of tools and
code base - the errata system will be updated as part of this projec"

The point of my message is really that the loss of an outlink to a
referenced document which is controlled by another standards body shouldn't
be handled mechanically.  As I outlined in my other note, somebody has to
make a judgement call about whether the reference to an archived version,
to an updated URL with the previous information, or to something else is
most appropriate.  Not all SDOs would be happy with a reference to an
archived version outside of their control, and we may have to reach out to
them in cases where that looks like the only option.  This is especially
the case in the "post-facto paywall" issue that was raised.

We have a set of stuckees for errata and re-using that set of stuckees for
this decision makes sense to me.  I don't care about the mechanics much
personally and I'd even be okay if we said it was a different group that
decided; if we recognize that it is a decision and agree on who makes it, I
think we'll be on the right track.



> Better to (at some point, not sure
> when), start over entirely with how to deal with errors and
> infelicities in RFC text. By "start over" I mean start with
> (re-)defining what the system is for. Meanwhile, were it up
> to me, I'd not have anyone do any new work based on the
> current errata system.
> Cheers,
> S.
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list