Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

> On 28 Apr 2023, at 09:22, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 to Ted except that sometimes errata are simply ignored for literally years. That's why I suggest a timeout after which the redirect is atomatically approved.

The more important point is that errata are not applied to RFCs as RFCs are unchanging.  Using solely the errata mechanism would mean someone you encountered a broken link, having to explicitly select the "show with errata" feature to find the new link.

So while the errata mechanism is close to what we want, in my view it’s not enough.  (There’s also a principle debate on whether or not a dead link is actually an erratum).

I don’t what stopping us from creating a new process specifically for broken links

- bot checks links and finds broken one, auto-generates a report
- report is looked at by appropriate person/body who decide on replacement link target (if there is one)
- HTML version of the RFC is updated to point to new target

Jay

> 
> (via tiny screen & keyboard)
> Regards,
>         Brian Carpenter
> 
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023, 20:03 Ted Hardie, <ted.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 9:10 PM Alexis Rossi <rsce@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rsce@rfc-editor.org>> wrote:
>>> It seems like using the errata system would maybe be a more haphazard method of fixing broken links over time, since it relies on humans to notice the original link is dead, report that as an errata, and then another human to check and approve it. Unless the proposal is to have a bot that files errata when links die (and then there’s just one human step to approve)?
>>> 
>>> 
>> Yes, sorry that was clear.  Essentially, the steps I propose:
>> 
>> On RFC publication, archive the outlink.
>> 
>> Run a periodic check on the status of the links in each RFC.
>> 
>> When one is determined to be unavailable, file an erratum mechanically
>> 
>> The community that would normally determine erratum validity examines the issue and determines the next step, which might be one of:
>> 
>> 1) The erratum is approved and lists the archived information as the target for approval on document update 
>> 2) The erratum is approved a different URL is listed as the target for approval on document update (e.g. the ieee.example/standards/08675 replacing ieee.example/standards/8675
>> 3) The erratum is rejected as the error was transient or will be corrected by the origin (where these are sibling SDOs, we generally have a way to reach out to them for this information).
>> 
>> The normal erratum process is then used to provide this information to the community (either separately or in-line, depending on the method they choose).
>> 
>> The advantage of this approach is that we are using community approved processes in a pretty easily understood way.  We can also use the same process when the link is live but something like a paywall has changed the state of availability.  That's not something we can likely identify mechanically, but we can re-use this set of steps.
>> 
>> Sorry that this wasn't clearer before.
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Ted
>> 
>>  
>>>> On Apr 27, 2023, at 1:40 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:12 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr%2Bietf@sandelman.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr%2BIETF@sandelman.ca>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>>>>>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
>>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@ietf.org