6

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:

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.")

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Thanks for the report. The links would need to be updated, but to let you know the site staffs will do it as it impact not just SF, but SO and other sites too.

A link to the answer here; Links to HTML versions of RFC's need to move from "tools" to "datatracker"

1
  • I used this SEDE query to identify a few additional URLs that may still be worth updating if unaffected by network-wide action.
    – anx
    Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 7:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .