Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

Jay Daley <> Wed, 26 April 2023 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A919C14CEFA for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cBn7l4gBuLZo for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBA32C14CEE3 for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f19ab994ccso45778485e9.2 for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1682497681; x=1685089681; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ltZAOw9YocjQelIJ/8hPYdiyHZOBs6zToH3y8k8Eq1A=; b=AGuWBIDNgTMfHrfIt8exeii0pBZenoQqzzFT62KSKb1tLyV3+fNyQ5Kl2ZSjfMw3yI 0WhfwSoG3COeRef3PMKx5Xi/v6VHy1Hk6UzWLnrlLhTjCv9Is3T6IzjOtDptdBLQ/+JW MhnCHED9MI4GjTocnJfe1rUXfs8FZRvbk9xL9EcM3xNGVuIVxv/HGd8n2YMRMUVEoqln PSN8mDR9ykIED9okQcQCyEfGx+zGVEQHR4EgXsYza5g6gwUVJwoAqHyRkJla+z65A2jA olHBeF/rrnc25603t8DZj87+SEY0fVh/z0T46oZmMcGg/z/PVw4BA0lB85LYTxo2OSk7 pDIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1682497681; x=1685089681; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ltZAOw9YocjQelIJ/8hPYdiyHZOBs6zToH3y8k8Eq1A=; b=C5s1UchjE2WeiHTuD5663kO+jJluHllV2FxFZgqBHGHEKEllO/Q5Ub7XBaUlBtB/Gn Po8SBdvhxGsoJv13Ezpo57rcJguF/OXxgpGc/1puarvad+DYm5iUGTgEP5J332Mmaz/J IM9BLSW43Q+OoqU52JsvVtNCSVZBlMc4Jp5Z+NNuC0lm14p5IhW5FXfFI5rfKeuxLkH4 T6OLyOclfAiABqePCvGSJU1gS0onGyZVE2+NDDQmZF/t8tVuL7gpyqqcy170RLEurqoM 1yTmApJrC2HYUC9S2A9sDKOUF4nyjRADkx2kXLz88Hqrvb2moE6SWqCxSstk4XS1gMSL laAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eGha0IEeZyFlD0p2ahJgbN5O2D7jQQu1R/UPzXi+IhKdftBxws uiWLRidJhtAbRQHig1vu+Ubasw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YIBIHiCgGXzvSQGdKszDxbAlQz9a42zdUkHZT4QDhwP5yUT6SS9weeAt1pGFeOY5R3aApWUQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c4d9:0:b0:3f1:969f:c9d0 with SMTP id g25-20020a7bc4d9000000b003f1969fc9d0mr9920557wmk.4.1682497680954; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t26-20020a05600c329a00b003f17f9965a7sm20684613wmp.1.2023. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B53BF40C-610E-4567-B07C-D32A68B1BD14"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\))
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:27:51 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Alexis Rossi <>, Paul Kyzivat <>,
To: Eric Rescorla <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.500.231)
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: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:28:28 -0000

> On 26 Apr 2023, at 00:41, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 4:24 PM Alexis Rossi < <>> wrote:
>> > 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.
> 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.


> 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 mailing list

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director