Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

> On 26 Apr 2023, at 00:41, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 4:24 PM Alexis Rossi <rsce@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rsce@rfc-editor.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > On Apr 25, 2023, at 12:33 PM, Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net <mailto:paul.kyzivat@comcast.net>> 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.
> 
> Without taking a position on whether we should replace the links at publication time, I believe
> that would almost certainly be a question for the RSWG.

I realise this complicates things, but - If the publication format was changed so that clicking on a link took someone to the archived version automatically, then I would agree that requires an RSWG decision.  If however the format was changed so that clicking on the link brought up a box with further links to both the original and the archived link so that people could choose then i don’t think that requires an RSWG decision.

In other words, there is an implicit policy here that someone can get to the intended reference page from a link in the document, but that says nothing on how many clicks it might take, or what other options are presented.

Jay

> 
> I think the RPC could *probably* choose to publish a separate version that had archival links
> on its own, but I think the default version would again be a question for the RSWG.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
>> Alexis
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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