Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35BC3A12DF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fF7CXi8OS-Is for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf42.google.com (mail-qv1-xf42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58D9C3A12F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf42.google.com with SMTP id t6so1133721qvz.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=NjI+Opi39Uc9RDk9J1otmS4EudGyYP2xrs1NppOMlRs=; b=Xnam2YIAln8i3u7ST89FUXA9uWflaXU7CReK2e8ZCgWUFCvNj7qoCuugP60MNlnB38 2wIArBqdsUkggNwJG3mDeueSTEpTq9nuebuv+mjFPtS4AklqHFfdb5gcTkGduMpaFTT+ JwTiZpqPvDyuDCUsNCGxZw1e2FwdMa7VEMlu+gQMcaZD18P3dgp3skxjNKDYeavgoSh3 1cbU9fNgnug/ZrLIJ6nu4l/ut5h+BAZrPwynsB9LPIssHa7PX700M2VHHrp79igglOAj 5bxNb02gTlH0nOYtOk95DmgcuknkenVomDOcIcrayijZHEjPmxZ4IDuVQ637Nv19fLnq RvGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=NjI+Opi39Uc9RDk9J1otmS4EudGyYP2xrs1NppOMlRs=; b=GDE33qM6Mg4n2nCwDhMIdb7yvC5D/8HKNsnyTVGwqbZvW6zl3Kw1Ah+W6EancZ/8v0 kZ3TJZFo6Agt4GdDJOt3v3TcbEwvQpGTNCnej+vRKQ2vb8AXswm3qdM4q/9WfHj0xv+w Pz3gvsaCfcuoZy7SvMaOkmhLx5p8BpE0VENZS4yjWxnv/GexUlo03umRJ2HJ2LeI/czP Uu8FRbDkS3oVBcazUZ2YpFaa399BgJBj8YyP1zwNSITNkkZV97OEnxD4z+uYpCqu55qD oCgoAcPkCls4MlACgg65ue3CyI3O2hwWNhEM+ANOVITz6UVllzv2Zprdf7qY4zO/sc7p jN4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5313gah2BeB6zbh8XITdUTZZNnlT6/yBGaKSMVAG8FBD8iK17Wzb w2s9qQtuOXaW/AxbHs4y66nQ6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwClpAXobdSoxF81YxOECVAlzjUmg7Tic4BKI7813xWGL3guc1cGXf6IggJnHB8n1Sm0PzLg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1541:: with SMTP id t1mr3593769qvw.61.1603822564939; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.4.70] (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l125sm1261040qke.23.2020.10.27.11.16.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <C835600A-C79C-4FD0-B624-8D352B5D6169@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E93BD02-1F76-4CD5-B971-C5D46019CC5D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:16:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <34D4704E-5339-4A99-B537-91EC21656A1F@juniper.net>
Cc: EXT - randy <randy@psg.com>, "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "rsoc@iab.org" <rsoc@iab.org>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.com> <35EFE952-7786-4E24-B228-9BEE51D3C876@tzi.org> <20201026150241.GK48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20201026162814.GP39170@kduck.mit.edu> <20201026164036.GO48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1a56dc3b-56ef-3ffb-a12b-44d5e0d0f835@levkowetz.com> <20201026171931.GP48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b733240-fc78-5a71-8920-ff84fbf64287@iecc.com> <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <03976f9f-7f49-7bf7-ce29-ee989232a44d@gmail.com> <7FA8EF59-5CDE-42B9-A487-520531EEA1F0@juniper.net> <m2sg9z1seh.wl-randy@psg.com> <3DC65259-20A7-4AFA-BC24-604AB184081E@fugue.com> <7AEF79AB-8CDF-4414-BBB8-D1EA9716F82F@juniper.net> <D0067A1E-2C86-4174-9344-9887120BA37E@fugue.com> <34D4704E-5339-4A99-B537-91EC21656A1F@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-3GCSIuUw4-xqa5Th1_b2Sv5HqE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:16:09 -0000

On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:09 PM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> Needless to say, the concern does not seem valid to me. 

I think there’s legitimate cause for debate on this question; I’m not sure what the correct venue would be, however.

One solution would be for Henrik to simply document how to patch xml2rfc to enable pagination and page numbers in the TOC. At that point, anybody paginating a document would have to read the instructions for how to modify xml2rfc, which could include clear instructions on how to treat the output in terms of referencing it.

I think the main argument for doing this and not simply asking Henrik to fix the primary source is that there really aren’t that many people who rely on this feature, and so even though those people would benefit significantly from a fix, the overall risk really does outweigh the benefit. Of course, there’s no way to quantify the risk, so this can never go beyond conjecture, which means that ultimately the decision is a judgment call, not math.