Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

Alexis Rossi <> Tue, 25 April 2023 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22582C151B24 for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lkpIO1g7DshV; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C13A5C1519A6; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.\))
From: Alexis Rossi <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:24:06 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:24:07 -0000

> On Apr 25, 2023, at 12:33 PM, Paul Kyzivat <> wrote:
> Alexis,
> 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, I think something like these suggestions is a good next step. I know starting with a link directly to an archival version might not work for all outlinks - the authors may want to refer to a “living” resource that changes over time, for instance. So perhaps the best place to start is to always use two versions for outlinks - a live one and an archived one - and do that automatic switch when the live link dies. Perhaps putting in the archived outlinks becomes part of the editorial process? I’m interested to hear about the community’s thoughts on this, because I’m sure I don’t fully understand all of the same context that RFC authors writ large have on this subject.