Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 02/05/2023 23:15, Alexis Rossi wrote:
> Trying to steer clear of implementation details, I think these are
> the goals from our discussion:

Apologies if I've lost track, but I thought part of this was
to look back at what URLs in RFCs no longer work and also
report on those as a way of figure out how to meet your goal
#1 below. If that's the case, great, and maybe that'd be a
good goal #0. If that's not the case, then it'd be a pity if
the community don't get a chance to learn from that data.

I think there's value in reporting on what's found before
trying to decide how to go about the two goals below, esp
the 2nd one.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Goal #1: Encourage authors to choose the appropriate URL when
> creating an RFC.
> 
> - References to URLs with “live” content that is intended to change
> over time should point to live URLs.
> 
> - References to URLs where the information you want to cite is the
> exact same information you want all future readers to access should
> use archived URLs in their references (ie take a “snapshot” of the
> info as it is at this point in time and use that archived snapshot as
> the reference).
> 
> 
> Goal #2: Allow RPC to fix broken links in a version of published RFCs
> with appropriate approval.
> 
> - When the RPC receives notification of a broken link, they can
> identify a suggested replacement, obtain approval from the
> appropriate entity, and update an html version of the RFC with the
> approved link.
> 
> - Approval of replacement links for a document is provided by the
> same entities who approve errata for the document.
> 
> 
> 
> If we think those goals are correct, here’s a proposal for how we
> might get started:
> 
> - Update authors.ietf.org [1]  and Web Portion of the Style Guide [2]
> to provide guidance on choosing live vs archived URLs.  Suggested
> text: “For URL references, consider whether the resource contains
> “live” information that updates over time, or whether you are
> referencing information that should not change. For live information
> we recommend that you use the live URL in your reference.  For URLs
> where the information you want to cite is the exact same information
> you want all future readers to access, you should use an archived
> URL. An archived URL can be created using the Save Page Now feature
> of the Wayback Machine [3], or you may ask the RPC to create one for
> you prior to publication. It is not necessary to create or use
> archived URLs for links to RFCs, Internet Drafts, RFC errata, or
> emails on our mailing lists.”
> 
> - Add issue to 7322-bis [4] so that the updated Style Guide RFC
> includes guidance on choosing the appropriate URL for your
> references, per above.
> 
> - Update Web Portion of the Style Guide (or other place? I’m unclear
> on where this should live) to allow RPC to fix broken URLs.
> Suggested text: “When a link in a published RFC no longer leads to
> the intended content, the RPC will attempt to replace it with either
> an updated or archived version of the link in an html version of the
> RFC. The RPC will consult with the appropriate entity to verify that
> the replacement link is correct before the change is published.
> Approval of replacement links for a document is provided by the same
> entities who approve errata for the document. If there is no clear
> approval entity for the document, RPC may ask RSAB for guidance.
> Links changed via this process will be clearly marked. If no
> replacement link can be found, the html version will identify the
> link as broken.”
> 
> [1] https://authors.ietf.org/en/references-in-rfcxml
> <https://authors.ietf.org/en/references-in-rfcxml> [2]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/> [3]
> https://web.archive.org/ <https://web.archive.org/>[4]
> draft-rpc-rfc7322bis
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rpc-rfc7322bis/> (which lives
> in github at https://github.com/rfc-editor/draft-rpc-rfc7322bis
> <https://github.com/rfc-editor/draft-rpc-rfc7322bis>)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing
> list [e-mail] 
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest