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 18:01 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 976393A0DFE; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.868
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 6H1sUhWc4am1; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:01:12 -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 D3A9D3A0E03; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:01:10 -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 C6D15548019; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:01:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id C0F09440059; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:01:05 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:01:05 +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: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
Message-ID: <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.com> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b733240-fc78-5a71-8920-ff84fbf64287@iecc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/99sOI1VgAMn97lky4zrVxGkwo_0>
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 18:01:15 -0000

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/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