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

Benjamin Kaduk <> Thu, 29 October 2020 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193773A076F; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3xS84GPr-Q02; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 874D33A067A; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 09T0tKsU024069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:55:24 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:19 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <>
To: Mark Andrews <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>, Working Group Chairs <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>, RFC Interest <>,
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)
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <263C265C19B24BA97AF48934@PSB> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
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: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:55:31 -0000

Hi Mark,

I think we are solidly into "your way is not my way but your way is okay"
territory here.  Just because you like the clickable-link ToC and it works
great for you does not meen that everyone else has to prefer it, too.
If John is happy with "dumb" text, what difference does it make to you?


On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:30:53AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> John, with electronic versions the ToC *works* for PDF and HTML.
> For dead trees versions the ToC does not work efficiently regardless
> of the original form.  Binary searches through a stack of pages is
> not efficient.  The plain text version also has this issue in the
> electronic version.
> The point of a ToC is to have list of the sections *and* to be able
> to get to the relevant section easily.  When you can’t click on a link
> you need page numbers especially as we have unnumbered sections.
> One shouldn’t have to memorise the section names *and* order in the ToC
> to find something in a dead tree version.