Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On 3 May 2023, at 18:21, Alexis Rossi wrote:

> Here is an example of HTML with inline errata: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc6376.html

Thanks, that's helpful. It shows that there are two HTML versions, one under /rfc/inline-errata and one under /rfc. I thought your message earlier indicated that the "main" HTML was being modified.


> If you are on the info page for an RFC (a la https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376), you see two HTML files there - one that reproduces the text as published, and one that includes verified errata. Perhaps you are looking at the versions that do not include errata?

No, I was looking at the "main" HTML for an RFC that has errata. I got there from a normal URL for the RFC.

> As far as I know, there is no RFC that describes the errata system. There is an expired draft [1] and an IESG statement [2] - thank you to the RPC team for the pointers!
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfc-editor-errata-process/
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/

Both of those are from 2008! The latter does not indicate that the RPC (which didn't have that name then...) should publish versions of the RFCs with errata applied.

Given this, it still very much seems like this is RFC publication policy.

--Paul Hoffman