diff --git a/syndicate/mc/preserve.md b/syndicate/mc/preserve.md
index 237c549..0326680 100644
--- a/syndicate/mc/preserve.md
+++ b/syndicate/mc/preserve.md
@@ -939,14 +939,14 @@ Specifically, JSON does not:
 In short, JSON syntax doesn't *denote* anything.[^xml-infoset] [^other-formats]
 
   [^meaning-ieee-double]:
-    [Section 6 of RFC 7159](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-6)
+    [Section 6 of RFC 8259](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259#section-6)
     does go so far as to indicate “good interoperability can be
     achieved” by imagining that parsers are able reliably to
     understand the syntax of numbers as denoting an IEEE 754
     double-precision floating-point value.
 
   [^string-key-comparison]:
-    [Section 8.3 of RFC 7159](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-8.3)
+    [Section 8.3 of RFC 8259](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259#section-8.3)
     suggests that *if* an implementation compares strings used as
     object keys “code unit by code unit”, then it will interoperate
     with *other such implementations*, but neither requires this
@@ -954,12 +954,12 @@ In short, JSON syntax doesn't *denote* anything.[^xml-infoset] [^other-formats]
     contexts.
 
   [^json-member-ordering]:
-    [Section 4 of RFC 7159](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-4)
+    [Section 4 of RFC 8259](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259#section-4)
     remarks that “[implementations] differ as to whether or not they
     make the ordering of object members visible to calling software.”
 
   [^json-key-uniqueness]:
-    [Section 4 of RFC 7159](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-4)
+    [Section 4 of RFC 8259](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259#section-4)
     is the only place in the specification that mentions the issue. It
     explicitly sanctions implementations supporting duplicate keys,
     noting only that “when the names within an object are not unique,