Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

Eliot Lear <> Fri, 28 April 2023 11:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE043C151B18; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.887
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5OaXH1EMlNv; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:bd80:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1C56C151B26; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=upstairs; t=1682680075; bh=RF4Z9XgITRKFrVGcokMsGXVkK99ulzPc7jut+ctChbY=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=lJ1y2t6yJuSQuYxVgG2fl/TzrlkDyLqr2EI0kLxY5nblQhin12aHrHv0QTHagoS5W p/l+FqD/Pp07ubuzfKh3BwckdHxpRc4syNSFTnhVShbQWzBDO8jIN+HjinzKiHvSD5 9eA2ou4v0Ue817rNg3cM1kL2vQQHMxRkK9/e8lXQ=
Received: from [IPV6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::4] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:4]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 33SB7rwW336610 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:07:54 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8wrqgQS2YaN0hG0l6DPeW0C8"
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:07:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Alexis Rossi <>, Michael Richardson <>
Cc: Jay Daley <>, Paul Kyzivat <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <996.1682529169@localhost> <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 11:08:10 -0000


On 27.04.23 21:58, Alexis Rossi wrote:
> I wonder if it’s helpful to look at how wikipedia does this currently?
> Reference #260 from 
> is 
> formatted like this:
> {{cite web|url= 
> |title=Citizen King Transcript |publisher=PBS |access-date=June 12, 
> 2008 |archive-date=January 25, 2013 
> |archive-url= 
> |url-status=dead }}
> Basically, the reference has:
> - The originally referenced URL with the date it was cited
> - The archived URL with the date it was archived
> -The status of the live link (dead) which triggers a change to how the 
> reference displays on the page to favor the archived link. I believe 
> this status determined by a bot run by the community.
> If we went with Jay’s idea to just always display both, then perhaps 
> we don’t need that last bit where we know if it’s dead or alive.

I like the concept.  Would we operate a link farm that periodically 
checked status?

  * Who is responsible for archiving a link?
  * What permissions does one need to do that?  Should it be automated?
  * Does anyone make use use <link rel archives="..."> for this
    purpose?  I was looking at the definition and it's very loosy goosy.
  * I'm no fan of pop-ups to resolve, well, anything, as they make for
    miserable user experiences.