Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

[Alexis Rossi <[e-mail]>]

> On May 2, 2023, at 4:35 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alexis Rossi <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Trying to steer clear of implementation details, I think these are the
>> goals from our discussion:
> 
> I'm with you.
> 
>> - Update authors.ietf.org [1] and Web Portion of the Style Guide [2] to
>> provide guidance on choosing live vs archived URLs.  Suggested text:
>> “For URL references, consider whether the resource contains “live”
>> information that updates over time, or whether you are referencing
>> information that should not change. For live information we recommend
>> that you use the live URL in your reference.  For URLs where the
> 
> I'm unclear how one could really ever cite a "live URL", or maybe I don't see
> the point.   It seems that we might want the result to be something like:
> 
>    <a href="https://archive.org/blah.example/page01">https://blah.example/page01</a>
> 
> with appropriate adjustments for references and the like in the .txt version.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 

Maybe my wording is unclear? I’m trying to describe the difference between citing a source where you know the content will change over time, and you specifically want to point people to the ever-changing content there (example might be a standard at another SDO that changes) - that’s what I mean by a “live” link and perhaps that’s the wrong wording. But the thought is that if you are citing a resource where you know the info changes and that’s the desired outcome, you should cite that link directly - not an archived version of the link.  (This is in contrast to a link where you want someone who follows the reference to always and only see exactly the same content you saw when you cited it.)  Does that make more sense?

Alexis

> 
>