Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 26 October 2020 23:41 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.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 548D63A10D4; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 B4n5aWF5dRmh; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x631.google.com (mail-ej1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::631]) (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 9229B3A10CE; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x631.google.com with SMTP id bn26so252732ejb.6; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xqFnl0mZ2VmGae1z8IFTifkreSn8Ola8u3AYXVYmyM4=; b=G1RyG6Ls+OfiPtXsUCKrPkSzfzeNkUraRwHVfNhzBOIPjQ5LuTR9VifZ0XTA0HRa4W qO+dH43/hAN8YcUJN3alVcfuI5yhdG5VZaO7BMBbaosIyRon+kEGHWkOVLaMSWUHCErU +b92KiX608TC1ddJwQ07yfQWAaq7xC52/842+OowXowO2mNOGkZhETRqgfZ771VWielz aSpaIlDIXSaBPXlw9WIWFzgnYVo07WzOd0yY7isiL5HH766Q0Qf5bO//SofroXC0cuj2 pUGeaMY7D7luDOYlrgObFNgyAxWVmc0GPX01ZE4GLqBMkBNm2fSjFK12pNilSsurbpVf Q0zg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xqFnl0mZ2VmGae1z8IFTifkreSn8Ola8u3AYXVYmyM4=; b=mkyRCYXle1vBH+v5kDm9gMUIccIrkbmT8k7I5n0SxqeASqbk8aTdja8BU8TP2VOz6f lq54Y/OW5qneTCZnWheo6hVJtfwz4IR2lt67SD5b/9UiMz3jf5ni1tiOAHsDeHeYXUhf zeGZLM3eqMGXaIUD8MIXLiBsrrUSHzZrvqAtR352rqH5VT+Ci3b+JOsTSmpmFlI1uz22 XLJefJHNYebTQ1ZA/vLPQkvoWqbExs8Inm1rwPi8G2NNdDaNSoUOog8BncxrOE+zZtNL d3i4NgqNm7iaWBssV5MjdOjO1XNbBc+Ly++jTt9z+VpE4UFxJg6+01gPFkbDspFigHKx gEvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532favjeYSYW9ObiZvA5LVa4AjTPvfD5NJ9XSjp/cUM4NfHmNk9F iomq5oebm2dyh2QWtC4BHHDyeS5igZfyzFBtfrM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzK21sJeM8TF8xaoq4BEdYJT9iOEYhJPiWzojbDvLT6Dc3MkToglHc9V9211pgw5ExYIpn8yGEdIZA5yxlIVzE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3b8e:: with SMTP id u14mr17671733ejf.127.1603755670839; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <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> <7879175D0ABBB5401B02FEA6@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <7879175D0ABBB5401B02FEA6@PSB>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:40:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jepH-78f3PVGZbSSO8f=Qj-rWNOEkFd_qrJMzOLMZ8PbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, ietf@ietf.org, wgchairs@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, rsoc@iab.org, ietf@johnlevine.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001128eb05b29b77fb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1-VG5GR-VvGw5rv5gx_GRc2VwkI>
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: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:41:15 -0000
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 6:06 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > Brian, > > I look at the same information and come to a different > conclusion (quite independent of the question of whether a poll > at this point is a useful exercise)... > > --On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 07:56 +1300 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As Julian Reschke observed on the rfc-interest list, since the > > new RFC format was implemented: > > > >> page numbers should not be used to refer to parts of the > >> RFC, because page breaks vary with output formats > > Cross references (and other references) to page numbers have > been discouraged since at least RFC 1543 (in 1993) and banned > soon after that, to the point that the RFC Editor from the last > half of the 1990s would simply remove such references, replace > them with references to section numbers, and complain when > sections got too long for convenient referencing. Nothing about > restricting references to page numbers is new with the new > format. > > > So I can only see confusion if people use page numbers for > > any purpose whatever. So it doesn't matter if people want > > page numbers; they're now useless. So I won't be answering > > a poll, and I don't think the results are interesting. > > However, getting from "references to information by page numbers > have always been a bad idea, prohibited for a quarter-century, > and even more obviously a bad idea as we move to multiple > formats" to "any purpose whatsoever" is a big jump. At least > some of us have tools and macros floating around that are > dependent on pagination and, as an exception to the > "referencing" rules, it is still not clear (at least to me) how > to build and format a document index using anything else (at > least without a lot of effort). There are even simple and > obvious reasons: If one is going to print an RFC from the text > form (or render it into printable form), something is going to > do the pagination and being able to easily estimate the page > count may affect how printing is to be set up. > > FWIW, the questions of "should documents be paginated" and > "should the pages be numbered" are also separate ones. > > Moreover, the argument that pagination (and page numbers) are > obsolete and useless for RFCs would be much stronger if the PDF > form for new RFCs were not paginated (or at least not numbered) > ... but it is both paginated and numbered. And, if the issue > is having things lay out well on many different types of > devices, eliminating pagination (and headers and footers) to > facilitate that is bogus: it would be equally or more reasonable > to eliminate (or rethink) line breaks in running text, etc. If > one really wants things optimally formatted for a variety of > different devices, then the right thing to do is to start from > the HTML form and a well-designed style sheet or to go back all > the way to the XML, not to try fussing with the ASCII text form. > > Conclusion: The main arguments that have been given for > eliminating pagination, headers and footers, and page numbering > --at least those based on different devices and references-- are > mostly bogus. > > So, from my point of view as a fan of pagination in the ASCII > form of RFCs, one who has never willingly referenced part of an > RFC by page number, this seems to come down to something else > entirely: if there is a goal to eliminate (or strongly > discourage) the use of ASCII format RFCs in favor of the HTML or > PDF forms (or building directly on the XML), then "no page > numbers" and "no pagination" are among the first few cuts of a > death by 1000 of them. If not, this has all of the hallmarks > of a gratuitous change to a format that has been useful to many > people for a very long time. > > john > > p.s. Just in case I'm the anonymous person John Levine's note > referred to, I didn't just "not participate" in the discussion. > It was made extremely clear that my input was not welcome, so > clear that, after a discussion or two with Heather that I should > spend my time in other ways. If there were a significant number > of others like me (and I have no way to tell, or even to guess) > then claims that the no-pagination form represents community > consensus lie somewhere on the scale between "dubious" and > "bogus". > Disagree. It is far past bogus. How about "somewhere between 'false' and 'disingenuous'"? > > >
- Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (w… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) … Robert Sparks
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… John Levine
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John Scudder
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Carsten Bormann
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Matty K
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? David Noveck
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Keith Moore
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: RFC mutation, with or without page numbers John Levine
- RE: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew Campling
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Matthew Kerwin