Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

[Alexis Rossi <[e-mail]>]

>>> 
>>> 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 A sub-question is whether we treat http: URLs as broken if they have been replaced by https:.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

I do see the advantage of the errata system, as it provides tooling and approval procedures that are already in place. However, I don’t think broken links are errata, per se, and it sounds like the current system is going to be replaced. I don’t have a particular opinion yet about implementation - does the goal itself seem correct? Regardless of what we do to implement it?

Alexis