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

Toerless Eckert <> Mon, 26 October 2020 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D4F3A0C21; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.869
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJZVRjcrTQAt; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24D13A0B9C; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8BA548066; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:14:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (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 <>
Cc:,, Henrik Levkowetz <>, Benjamin Kaduk <>,,
Subject: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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} 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 that
do include page numbers (and technically it does not seem to be a problem

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

Results here:


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