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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

[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