IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Wed, 26 April 2023 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F44BC151531; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GdzK6cXley4H; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC0CC14CF13; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709C538994; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:26:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id l2YZ2V2td1DG; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5C83898E; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1682530001; bh=37aG81VshP0WzpHeq4gIbTXqsKsw56CI70qCPwMdSdU=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=VdpPc7HgZkqxom7MNx4XkcyG/cPCpIX+54FF2G2+fxPOIzfurVs2czbLsBUDHpsSR XL+GCd03WUoDudaJjw+oTmnfmUNmI4GOVpYxkSaENm39795UNB1Ic+4XVHsCPeTkoh QI7DD+tzg99LETdqAMM9UgpEcPb6Tx22IdWhoyau6hLKFuz/KpOQglEAuyFC4BJtgJ o7QXSdEi+jrG4uLfLlwjlmHJ658nJhdv0yXEesWl8cVL8OoL5gF+AXdCttrJIVDcra bYoM6idHS+MZnYR0QPBVPq9DZXTMu68WN1g0VBuLY7Ur5AAFAoXpyW4UKav/nH8bQb UgHbkgyZw1M9Q==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D712F755; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Alexis Rossi <rsce@rfc-editor.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <E024D9AC-2B92-4720-9713-519592D2362B@rfc-editor.org>
References: <E024D9AC-2B92-4720-9713-519592D2362B@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:08:45 -0400
Message-ID: <32341.1682528925@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/nJhmvg6rRFLMczk6bp5oOeL8jAA>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:08:58 -0000

Thank you, this is interesting.

The CELLAR WG is working on RFC versions of what were historically protocols
documented on semi-stable web sites.  We have recently changed some of these
informative (historical) references to point to archive.org links.

Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net> wrote:
    > 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, this would be useful to me.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email