On 5/3/23 1:12 PM, John Scudder wrote:
On May 3, 2023, at 11:04 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote:
2) Please reconsider the link to the mailarchive in the RFC. Put it in the
shepherd writeup or in the history in the datatracker as a comment (chairs
can
do this). Otherwise it adds to the list of URLs that we have to keep alive
forever.
[LES:] I am open to whatever the chairs/AD think is appropriate. But very few
people actually look at the shepherd writeup or Datatracker history. Having it
in the document provides context for those readers who are curious as to why
the bis changes were made. I don’t think it would be as effective if it were
removed from the document.
I take your point that the URL may someday become stale - but if it did that
would apply to the other locations as well.
The section in which it appears is informational only - it is not a normative
part of the document - so I am inclined to leave it as is.
But again, happy to follow consensus on this.
Yeah, I don’t see how adding another layer of indirection makes the problem go
away. Perhaps it would be reasonable, though, to change the reference from a
bare URL, presented inline, to an Informative reference, to the effect of
[LSR-MAIL] IETF LSR Mailing List Archive, Tue, 15 June 2021 15:25 UTC,
"[Lsr] Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920”, and follow-up messages.
I don’t know if there is a standard style for this kind of reference, but it
seems like it might be a cleaner solution. It doesn’t provide one-click access
to the mailing list thread, but neither do some other references, and it should
be easy enough for anyone familiar with our mailing list archives or frankly,
even anyone who knows how to use a search engine. Also, ironically the bare URL
doesn’t provide one-click access either, because of how it’s line-broken in the
txt rendering.
Robert, Les, would that approach work for both of you?
Yes.
—John
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
