FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 26 October 2020 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 D7D4F3A0C21; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 SJZVRjcrTQAt; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24D13A0B9C; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8BA548066; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:14:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id DEDF2440059; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:14:42 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:14:42 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@johnlevine.com, rsoc@iab.org, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, wgchairs@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Subject: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
Message-ID: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6JJVhXdGWup9JYZB1XBDzb8ZTrg>
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 18:14:50 -0000

[Sorry, resenting with poll URL instead of result URL]

Since about RFC8650, newer RFC will not have any renderings with
page numbers on {datatracker,tools}.ietf.org. See explanation from
John Levine below.

Not having followed the details of the RFC/XMLv3 standardization process,
i was surprised by this because i think there is no reason to
have additional renderings, maybe even only on tools.ietf.org that
do include page numbers (and technically it does not seem to be a problem
either). 

If you care to express your position,
i have created a poll for this, please chime in there:

https://www.poll-maker.com/poll3188562x294441dA-98

Results here:

https://www.poll-maker.com/results3188562x294441dA-98

Cheers
    toerless

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:35:43PM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
> > Could you please explain why RSOC does not want to permit the ability
> > to have paginated RFC output options ? Also, where and when was this
> > discussed with the community ?
> 
> It was discussed in the multi-year process leading to the IAB
> publishing RFCs 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, and
> 7998 in 2016. I'm sure you know how to find the discussions in the
> archives.  Henrik knows all of this and I cannot imagine why he did not tell
> you the same thing.
> 
> I am aware there is one recent RFC author who did not participate in
> the process at all and has been complaining that the text version of
> his RFC doesn't have page numbers. I've explained this to him more
> than once, and see no reason to waste more time on it.
> 
> R's,
> John