I have seen some RFC documents linked with URLs pointing to third-party (non-ietf.org) formatting tools, and one recent suggested edit reproducing what is currently also a redirect:

• http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-3.3.11
• https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1035#section-3.3.11

I am not very up to date with the IETFs famous conflict resolution mechanisms, but apparently the canonical URL to the html-formatter changed.

• Any links that need to be updated?
• Any cases where edits updating the URL are improving the post (beyond consistency while adding new URLs)?
• Is this the new preferred method of referencing (subsections of) html-formatted RFC into which any broken links should be edited?

(Yes, I am kinda hoping for an answer like "look at mailarchive.ietf.org/.. it explains everything and promises to keep these links all alive forever.")

I have seen some RFC documents linked with URLs pointing to third-party (non-ietf.org) formatting tools, and one recent suggested edit reproducing what is currently also a redirect:

• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1035#section-3.3.11
• https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1035#section-3.3.11

I am not very up to date with the IETFs famous conflict resolution mechanisms, but apparently the canonical URL to the html-formatter changed.

• Any links that need to be updated?
• Any cases where edits updating the URL are improving the post (beyond consistency while adding new URLs)?
• Is this the new preferred method of referencing (subsections of) html-formatted RFC into which any broken links should be edited?

(Yes, I am kinda hoping for an answer like "look at mailarchive.ietf.org/.. it explains everything and promises to keep these links all alive forever.")