Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 4/28/23 4:28 AM, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 28 Apr 2023, at 09:22, Brian Carpenter 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to Ted except that sometimes errata are simply ignored for 
>> literally years. That's why I suggest a timeout after which the 
>> redirect is atomatically approved.
> 
> The more important point is that errata are not applied to RFCs as RFCs 
> are unchanging.  Using solely the errata mechanism would mean someone 
> you encountered a broken link, having to explicitly select the "show 
> with errata" feature to find the new link.
> 
> So while the errata mechanism is close to what we want, in my view it’s 
> not enough.  (There’s also a principle debate on whether or not a dead 
> link is actually an erratum).

I just posted a similar comment before having seen this. Sorry for not 
reading ahead first.

> I don’t what stopping us from creating a new process specifically for 
> broken links
> 
> - bot checks links and finds broken one, auto-generates a report
> - report is looked at by appropriate person/body who decide on 
> replacement link target (if there is one)
> - HTML version of the RFC is updated to point to new target

Only the HTML version?

I would think even the xml version should be updated. (In a way that 
doesn't lose the original link info.) Then all the various renderings 
could also be updated. Of course the renderings would differ by format.

	Thanks,
	Paul