Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:50 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
> 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make a judgement call about whether the reference to an archived version,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  Not all SDOs would be happy with a reference to an
archived version outside of their control, and we may have to reach out to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.

regards,

Ted

> 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
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>