Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)

Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net> Thu, 29 October 2020 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lenny@juniper.net>
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 4A4F83A07AE; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=i91zAfn3; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=H1WRO3tH
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 vHeb2OdeATqC; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B073A07BD; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09TJIaaf024997; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=PPS1017; bh=DyW+WL89uqVC7jD0uMSvL3aF45OFYDldn4uDtvlt8rU=; b=i91zAfn3altMI76nANmLacvRLqJLORpCiCU4e5XmBxWFPwmJM4mbGQXwJXJEnYb/sii0 poNRW5tPwLv4oVxmgh6zrZO6XKljRWuzB0Aqvf/AR99Ls6Afl8VIx7tKaUZSO014I6qn Oq93QmtHVgZr9Ejn1QyKPgY5i1CsI5fY64es4Qxwh3R+cWiZtXOL/qkOzw3uCv+zacsW LrDeNDWA54+Rv7adtYoaeaTIo8i8s9e//viubPLTmd7I+nkcZlXW2jNrqdVqkqQV+JB5 lPTCQX0wrodK4ZfI8/TT1qLGe5QH4UfwGQLxwSo7ygyFRkKQrYTvxOuk0dNVrUNBgVoS 1A==
Received: from nam12-mw2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam12lp2040.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.66.40]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 34fd0wjcdh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:54 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=eBRwgNpuNqvH//H4DtAMP7bND85wV/kiTmqRLvv9d81sI32aK1mCgCxmkT8kh99e9kozMNf2XskSSrel+sk8vfAP7Yb4/D9QYZdcVjo5XrbON0pzRzHbMbNFY9M3lV0PUhJdMuwuqugt1oSnPqD2RUVEBudvUze1Tz1uymFQ2c4GXR2RV9tKV8Dv2KFxmaKeR6Ed47IaeuH3bm0NK7xJZENSAadvhHSIvgj1jBYwTYsncth3VXg9iK45OG+Z2mWZX/At8y65rt5PDAd/9lEqPDI8F2iNDLVDw0axfS8S84H517qkxE6anGPrNdnbeBMyAeYhihdCXGU+N+I+oHdCiQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=DyW+WL89uqVC7jD0uMSvL3aF45OFYDldn4uDtvlt8rU=; b=eJLTlulAdBT3DW4tNAphJVW8XSBow8gUVVRa4Ebyso6X40ZuAqO+Xq5E7N1xU3huex7TdspbgU8GnXn0dkNUztIHlNyv5DmkYxOS+y3xHHKw4eJHZ4jRy5y2WWeUAO/b11oPoTwGgpMQWWa0sIinp2/4ESrcQ4zK+dH8g+OohssV+Wz4o4DfCwV/3Qvu15/vNweU1n9KMTkVyKIjGJ/C0fywOe09F3zVEacQDWdDSefRv5L9Cm06zYeO0/3HsnK11vF9OVcIZkwR9vWkBBcgJe3J0bZUAvCjY/8YFX+7L8fX5KCOCLaQvwQF5+x9UXSLIcIW09IUYKo6Ea/uN2Po+w==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=softfail (sender ip is 66.129.242.12) smtp.rcpttodomain=jck.com smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=fail (p=reject sp=reject pct=100) action=oreject header.from=juniper.net; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=DyW+WL89uqVC7jD0uMSvL3aF45OFYDldn4uDtvlt8rU=; b=H1WRO3tHnhR0PNmZXLe2zhxOIAvAhDEaMEJ0JTDQgkMw9mLRW63pB9J3DTv+CmgQTtPn7TWoO3sYcXYKAAYgnpn8t3MPYT0FFFPw7yddF+XN8Dd8DgXtJj9tSGcrL2eQAtjytoD28337/hJKoieKZXs0YLGURALkX3F8hamSGmA=
Received: from MWHPR20CA0044.namprd20.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:ed::30) by SN6PR05MB4815.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:805:90::32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3499.4; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:18:51 +0000
Received: from CO1NAM05FT056.eop-nam05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:ed:cafe::28) by MWHPR20CA0044.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:300:ed::30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3499.18 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:18:51 +0000
X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=softfail (sender IP is 66.129.242.12) smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; jck.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;jck.com; dmarc=fail action=oreject header.from=juniper.net;
Received-SPF: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning juniper.net discourages use of 66.129.242.12 as permitted sender)
Received: from P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (66.129.242.12) by CO1NAM05FT056.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.96.172) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.3541.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:18:50 +0000
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-03.jnpr.net (10.104.8.56) by P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:50 -0700
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) by P-EXBEND-EQX-03.jnpr.net (10.104.8.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:49 -0700
Received: from p-mailhub01.juniper.net (10.104.20.6) by P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:49 -0700
Received: from eng-mail03.juniper.net (eng-mail03.juniper.net [10.108.12.11]) by p-mailhub01.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id 09TJIlc2021233; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:47 -0700 (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
Received: from eng-mail03.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eng-mail03.juniper.net (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPS id 09TJIoEd011029 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
Received: from localhost (lenny@localhost) by eng-mail03.juniper.net (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) with ESMTP id 09TJIbEu011026; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
X-Authentication-Warning: eng-mail03.juniper.net: lenny owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:18:36 -0700
From: Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
CC: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, "John Levine" <ietf@johnlevine.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, <rsoc@iab.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFH9_Gpv-fNaYwc+08emt8ahohXEkGRMmZYhEqWETrRVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a8dfa466-bde-6ca7-942b-1e2ab1ca63c7@juniper.net>
References: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8jdSeTDWy_0fCV25ykxKFMV1ZBtUMMNesoOuaXCzFVfpOA@mail.gmail.com> <D2D0455D-8D6C-4A19-ACAE-4DD972D83DC1@bluepopcorn.net> <20201028164053.GB12700@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <263C265C19B24BA97AF48934@PSB> <CAHw9_iJVdE9hdpy9o6mSRFbHR4CZ8SUdU1NURGP4gS6YTWPXmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEFH9_Gpv-fNaYwc+08emt8ahohXEkGRMmZYhEqWETrRVg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e3cb0ff2-54e7-4646-8a04-0dae4ac7b136
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 71159c1a-2805-41b7-811e-08d87c3f77f5
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: SN6PR05MB4815:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <SN6PR05MB4815FC5F636733EEB39616EEA4140@SN6PR05MB4815.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:10000;
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: jCwSPOSqlar1D0Cb+C+Cu3ZxmKj3ygdAuQD5UdT/U/86JHLFtQQvhisKACP7lYej0p47qDaTHucnmsaXA63NSp8CU7r2HbFcORZD5p0ugMggpWCS1oRxnx1BB24/4NzuTh2ICVzy2ZJXoeQCLrvoANAPQb/8nxLKvNDaVndzb48jf235YiezKUijdxfqI4HGXD3ve/hfLU8ZzUnSdthl/DsZLrdshrAHsvHEe17zsvFrU030BFjMd1UFQ2T0GfInBNe+DNprMAszecZUdWpxXF64WH59EHO2RPQwkVsrGzzYn8MmrSr8Hmqm7KzOsJtgg/xzbQ5TkOJ4RQmK6lcUdk6yqnBlbFOzvmC/F8xiLUxMnspKowVsieVAEb5XFr6MMaxP71TtVyrqv0ApsUm5Kour4oLZTvmjqiTbbpOjUurPTvSDmZxEt4mEpbBhwHQA+TuFTvPVTQ66+xogbXVdKr4HabjBAYwlICIWMvWkLf8=
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.242.12; CTRY:US; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:CAL; SFV:NSPM; H:P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(376002)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(46966005)(186003)(83380400001)(8676002)(5660300002)(316002)(7416002)(4326008)(47076004)(82740400003)(81166007)(26005)(426003)(356005)(36756003)(2616005)(966005)(478600001)(53546011)(86362001)(54906003)(70206006)(82310400003)(336012)(2906002)(6916009)(70586007)(8936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Oct 2020 19:18:50.9347 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 71159c1a-2805-41b7-811e-08d87c3f77f5
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; Ip=[66.129.242.12]; Helo=[P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM05FT056.eop-nam05.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR05MB4815
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.312, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-10-29_12:2020-10-29, 2020-10-29 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010290132
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3qkxRM7SSJEgYd4uwmZf653vhQE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:01:34 -0700
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: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:19:11 -0000

+1 
One of the big things I appreciate about IETF specs is the simplicity and 
ease of consumption from the txt versions.  

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, Donald Eastlake wrote:

| 
| 
| I endorse Warren's comments. I use the text versions heavily and I believe that one of the formats available should preserve the traditional RFC format.
| -- All formats should have a Tables of Content. (Well, I guess I would agree that if an RFC had less than two sections, it wouldn't need a ToC, but I don't see how that is possible with the current requirements.)
| 
| -- If a format is paginated, it should have page numbers. (A warning could be added something like "Warning: The page numbers in this document depend on its presentation format and will differ in other renditions.")
| 
| -- If a format has a ToC and pages numbers, those page numbers should appear in the ToC and just before the ToC would be a good place for the warning suggested above.
| 
| Thanks,
| Donald
| ===============================
|  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
|  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
|  d3e3e3@gmail.com
| 
| 
| On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 4:02 PM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
|       On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:20 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
|       >
|       [ Massive SNIP ]
| 
|       >
|       >  (a) They are traditional in the RFC Series and
|       >         preserving that rendering in a format consistent with a
|       >         significant fraction of the first 7000 or so of RFCs
|       >         would seem to have some advantages.  Of course, no one
|       >         is forced to use them, any more than anyone has been
|       >         forced to use the standard text form since HTML and PDF
|       >         forms became generally available years ago.
|       >
|       >  (b) Of the fraction of the community that still prefers
|       >         to use the plain text form (at least sometimes) and for
|       >         one purpose or another, some fraction of them prefer to
|       >         have the headers and footers and many of those prefer,
|       >         or are not disturbed by, the page numbers.  Because many
|       >         of the arguments against page numbers seem to be coming
|       >         from people who do not find the plain text form useful,
|       >         probably we should pay attention to that preference ...
|       >         or start making the case for getting rid of the plain
|       >         text form entirely, perhaps because those who prefer it
|       >         (for any purpose) need to be persuaded to join the
|       >         modern era and get with the programs.
|       >
| 
|       I realize you aren't actually pushing this point, but this seemed like
|       the clearest expression of one of my concerns with this entire thread,
|       and so I'm choosing to hook onto it...
| 
|       Full disclosure:
|       I'm one of the people who both believes that there is value in the
|       "traditional" aspect of the series, and the fact that RFC17 looks the
|       same as RFC42, which looks the same as RFC4217, which looks the same
|       as RFC8217 is a good thing.
|       I also like and use the text formats - I sometimes print out RFCS, I
|       have tooling which greps through documents for things, I generate
|       statistics, etc. It's a personal preference.
| 
|       I've gotten 2 distinctly negative impressions from this thread:
|       1: "You need to join the modern era and get with the program" sums it
|       up well. HTML / flowed output is the new world, liking the text format
|       is bad and you should feel bad[0].
| 
|       2: There were extensive discussions around the new format, and the
|       lack of page numbers was mentioned. You were not paying attention when
|       this happened. Not only do you lose any right to discuss this, but you
|       were lazy and should feel bad.
| 
|       I'll happily admit that I didn't follow the new format discussions
|       closely, and that I do read a lot of things (including books) in
|       formats which don't have clear "pages", but the thing that is worrying
|       me is the underlying "and you should feel bad" tone in much of this
|       discussion.
| 
|       Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive (or that I just miss seeing IETFers
|       in person), but it feels to me like the "and you should feel bad"
|       subtext seems to be cropping up more and more. We used to generally
|       assume that someone who had a bad or silly idea just had a bad or
|       silly *idea* - but it now we often seem to be implying that the person
|       is bad or silly.
| 
|       Other than being able to meet in person again, I'm not sure how we get
|       back to where our base assumptions are that other IETFers are friends,
|       and are also trying to do the right thing...
| 
|       W
|       [0]: Meme reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2KMkQLZmI
| 
| 
|       > Probably I'm missing something important but, if the above
|       > analysis is even nearly correct, I don't understand why we are
|       > still having this conversation.
|       >
|       >     john
|       >
| 
| 
|       --
|       I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
|       idea in the first place.
|       This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
|       regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
|       of pants.
|          ---maf
| 
| 
|