Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 28 April 2023 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F32C13AE5A for <>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UfzQGzgo0L5k for <>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8329C13AE46 for <>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-63b5c4c769aso11561370b3a.3 for <>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1682653392; x=1685245392; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lWuVCjtqodQX4B88Jd1msBqpOYMBzqqS89Z0iClo4fU=; b=TWPUdiZ4xZl/Y208lu+blIQysJjfnRQeZCPoGeShCijBc0iGlAjrQ/GBmcGo6NngRl cyEiM8Y0vnC+P6KcBPezQd5Vfk9xmpmUSZpizioTjOvbbxBsCql2DXZMcZKpVd6mkbN5 8nXQ5sclZgOiRoMaK0K/mwY7/mtItwyfmy4WT0X7XJiVm7epv7rh2lW3y1mMBHb0BrIe 0L0TaQ13pHODnwJWtxxr3NpuwN7gBOf21vqO5/IvS9DqgdkBXjPtK1x0vDx3XsY2jM3y Iuml1RgKgT0++KqFuADJdYzVPniRvsWoulUqWHx18daWphbTlrFggYQiRKgBWiK1VeiZ FNKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1682653392; x=1685245392; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lWuVCjtqodQX4B88Jd1msBqpOYMBzqqS89Z0iClo4fU=; b=DQv8sIAzxTgeO3BQh0PsZet35ehra7xOvdsBxDL1551MqUdRsukb62uErgbKf7cGQw iS0T7YdAm04K0Yy3TV45ZyT5jgNLFS+9ljp4C48OuM7vm7PERHtUfxki5wCKax8+J51b C431vP2EporHBYuEeL/sghVQ936D7Yove5H7f8qxWLC+e5G/LA+paAr61K2Ipa8V9bUR tU5RgTEg2B3/y9Ukrm9LYNIT8jUZgC2+i2FnlgXpbMu/453YE0pvNVAQbFzT+1iN1OY+ OrDBw7WhvC1+IQ/I9bbMTx2vmRq+SGAjtiFRPdjVp0eqh9AW7KrK6xC+n5u9TqSgfi3r 6Scg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxOy4xU+RauxqjOt3YpvVJjNkJdrhtREtqaB8PRN/qtKcpVSl2w RcO1gGaCCywFSz5q/SWba8eiT4vo+n0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6e+QxjvSxKwiH7HxuLUBAcZ/3qI3a+iOS8fPPtW2JK48DffJSM4Z0Mc4VS4QdGXpVyphkk0Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1946:b0:63d:3ae4:7c72 with SMTP id s6-20020a056a00194600b0063d3ae47c72mr4693575pfk.0.1682653392276; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t3-20020aa79383000000b0063b5defe7ebsm13892784pfe.209.2023. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:43:07 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Eliot Lear <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <796.1682529129@localhost> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 03:43:13 -0000

On 28-Apr-23 08:42, Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 27.04.23 22:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I think that automating the errata creation is a good idea. The point
>> is to trigger human intervention when it's appropriate, and that
>> should be a stream choice rather than an RPC choice. In many cases an
>> automated redirect to an archive copy will be all that's needed.
> I am not ready to say that.  I would like to see if there is a generic
> policy that could apply to all RFCs.  That will provide the reader with
> a consistent experience.

I'm sure that there's a generic *default* policy that would apply to
*most* RFCs, but there might be corner cases. My thinking is to apply
the generic policy automatically, but to use the errata mechanism to
alert the content owner (i.e. the stream). If the stream does nothing
before $TIMEOUT, the default policy would apply.

As for what a corner case might be, I don't know, that's why it's
a corner case.