Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:12 PM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > I agree with Ekr that this is problematic, but my concern is with
> external
>     > links to other standards.  If I replace a link to
> https://ieee.example/876.1
>     > to an archive link like
>     >
> https://archivesite.example/see?https_ieee_example/876.1_retrieved_the_day_of_publication
>     > then ieee.example has no chance to use its own redirects or
> tombstones to
>
> It also keeps ieee.example from replacing the link that we were using with
> a
> link that goes through a paywall.
>
> (Which, btw, DOES HAPPEN regularly)
>
>
I think this would also be grounds for filing an erratum.  But my basic
point remains that the erratum process triggers the right thing: discussion
among the folks within the IETF who are responsible for the relevant RFC.
There are several different "correct" responses depending on the
circumstances, and they are the right folks to make the decision.  We
already have a way to indicate that there are errata and/or display them in
line.  We can use that here, rather than trying to decide in advance.

regards,

Ted




> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
>