Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 4:24 PM Alexis Rossi <rsce@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 25, 2023, at 12:33 PM, Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Alexis,
> >
> > This is interesting. Would it make sense to adjust our RFC format so
> that links are directly to an archival site, or so that each reference has
> two links, one to an original document and the other to an archival
> version? Or that all the RFCs are periodically tested and automatically
> switched to an archived target if the original goes stale?
>
>
> Yes, I think something like these suggestions is a good next step. I know
> starting with a link directly to an archival version might not work for all
> outlinks - the authors may want to refer to a “living” resource that
> changes over time, for instance. So perhaps the best place to start is to
> always use two versions for outlinks - a live one and an archived one - and
> do that automatic switch when the live link dies. Perhaps putting in the
> archived outlinks becomes part of the editorial process? I’m interested to
> hear about the community’s thoughts on this, because I’m sure I don’t fully
> understand all of the same context that RFC authors writ large have on this
> subject.
>

Without taking a position on whether we should replace the links at
publication time, I believe
that would almost certainly be a question for the RSWG.

I think the RPC could *probably* choose to publish a separate version that
had archival links
on its own, but I think the default version would again be a question for
the RSWG.

-Ekr

Alexis
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>