Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 02 May 2023 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6193C151717; Tue, 2 May 2023 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Wur5_kbMU7Mm; Tue, 2 May 2023 16:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (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 9A1E3C14CF1E; Tue, 2 May 2023 16:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-64115eef620so868278b3a.1; Tue, 02 May 2023 16:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1683070894; x=1685662894; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=TspXsFi613BfQQbwbB8iwpGdqtK6L+ERQ9r3xX4haaA=; b=AMJ9tv/SG/Pkoidmz5a5W9Vo1zWokYZDhnMHu+mGECIpjN2YiyH5R2WWOfP0Knkudm 1xz/HhFxhW6EwnqdkJFCRTUJItDruODaY9d4wjVlF4rMdJ7a2NpJD5eQZRuUK9wltA6m 6jFPbfGYIzFQawpNcQRS8wcbhyGBZ0TJyfhO2lmrLqhMJJnx3OR4xY5HgtZZVHYs4rzV 3VSkscf5c2PtcvhV9jYRXIlTQsCUKXcdIYsAXHMJ8bB0deMf+/fbtgJS03EXltZjBzpz zckV+UvR59KTsPGaRllw/ug+hBnaF+8avQcNjnFpmpEYXWqPzhSk+5npS1N8M2CFmSd5 MYMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1683070894; x=1685662894; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=TspXsFi613BfQQbwbB8iwpGdqtK6L+ERQ9r3xX4haaA=; b=GFKuECD08//pHd3zX3AbAgvG9KZlVtJiumgTMTHSYBUXYZoUpjsvizVfJgRvMpwLFs cZNUd1MVMFNtpV0iJNqAXdtK+fdX/h8LZT8ooROITqXLwSGovkW9JC4+mHe55IDRIxbB 2c3UvxGOb4fSAqM1a1T56sXYlp2vF8GoS9YUJfWGpyw9K6iSWsid1YB2XMbLdB6pU1TL yCfcfGVKQKt+2tFu2JFA0Sej7z7SMRYwmL3h+uyzALZfiMptF2px0q7NT2MTmlbKTlwX W8nAkh8UBg+1b/XcfOS/q6LYBmevnqucUhi1keCSO5iZ+J9cBoLbVURzYzwn3Y2+fVF/ m0IA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwt+8+kraWccijnDQy+nl4ZWTdOmaDQ1ToFQHUThUWlopiOerqF DHwMvraMp/9bm46+QHlr86SeIppRLbs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6hdR2TMttoMmJnZj5+oJPuYz1n7B1Qeu44L3zvf+jibZehsg2H8wjlRUDIzohLkHmQA/pHqQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ecce:b0:1a5:1842:f7da with SMTP id a14-20020a170902ecce00b001a51842f7damr106417plh.6.1683070893624; Tue, 02 May 2023 16:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id z2-20020a170902708200b001a19196af48sm20275332plk.64.2023. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 May 2023 16:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 11:41:31 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Paul Hoffman <>, Alexis Rossi <>
Cc: RFC Interest <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <796.1682529129@localhost> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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 23:41:37 -0000

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.