Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

[Redirecting to the RSWG mailing list, please remove
[e-mail] when no longer relevant.]

I have tried to come up with a 'theory' of how we decide what's policy 
and what not. The only reasonable thing I have been able to come up is 
"it's policy if the RSWG and the RSAG think it's policy".

That doesn't mean that arguments such as the ones below should not be 
made. We need these arguments so that the RSWG and the RSAG can come to 
a decision. Even if this decision might be to do (implicitly) nothing 
(which means it's not policy).

The reason for why I haven't seen anybody have a better criterion for 
distinguishing policy from non-policy is that some things may not be 
policy until they suddenly one day may become policy. As an example, the 
color(s) used in RFC renderings may not matter until some day the IETF 
decides on a brand new color scheme, and we want RFCs to follow that 
color scheme. Many similar examples, although somewhat improbable (but 
not impossible) can be made.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2023-04-26 12:12, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 26-Apr-23 12:17, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, at 09:55, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> Obviously the line between "style" and "content" is a fine, but istm 
>>> that the
>>> line you propose to draw would allow the RPC to take all the MUSTs, 
>>> style
>>> them out with CSS, and replace them with MUST NOTs.
>>
>> Well, different renderings choose different destinations for links to 
>> RFCs, I think.  So we seem to be on the edge there.  And we have 
>> inline errata renderings.  I guess your position is that those are in 
>> scope for approval here too.
> 
> I don't see why. Errata approval is a stream function, but that's about 
> content, not rendering.
> 
> Broken links are indeed on the edge, but "do the right thing" applies, 
> doesn't it? If the sense of the room is that pointing to archived pages 
> is the right thing, I'm not sure we'd really need an RFC saying so.
> 
>     Brian
> 
>>
>> I should try swapping MUST and MUST NOT in CSS, that would be ... 
>> interesting.
>>