Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

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

On 03-May-23 11:24, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 2 May 2023, at 15:15, Alexis Rossi wrote:
> 
>> Trying to steer clear of implementation details, I think these are the goals from our discussion:
>>
>> Goal #1: Encourage authors to choose the appropriate URL when creating an RFC.
>>
>> - References to URLs with “live” content that is intended to change over time should point to live URLs.
>>
>> - References to URLs where the information you want to cite is the exact same information you want all future readers to access should use archived URLs in their references (ie take a “snapshot” of the info as it is at this point in time and use that archived snapshot as the reference).
>>
>>
>> Goal #2: Allow RPC to fix broken links in a version of published RFCs with appropriate approval.
>>
>> - When the RPC receives notification of a broken link, they can identify a suggested replacement, obtain approval from the appropriate entity, and update an html version of the RFC with the approved link.
>>
>> - Approval of replacement links for a document is provided by the same entities who approve errata for the document.
> 
> Goal #2 would be a policy decision, and thus brought to the RSWG after Goal #1 is implemented. In specific, replacing any text in any format of an RFC is certainly a policy change from what we have now.

In case it wasn't obvious, that was an advantage of the proposal to treat broken URLs as errata - there is already established policy.

A sub-question is whether we treat http: URLs as broken if they have been replaced by https:. There will likely be many of those.

    Brian