Re: [art] New RFCs text formatting

[Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>]

That (the suggestions that RFC-interest is the wrong place to judge such 
things) may be, which is why I listed alternatives.  But just saying 
that two people liked the idea, and no one screamed, in one day, is 
clearly NOT enough to change the default.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/30/2019 9:32 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Joel,
> 
> FWIW, I think that measuring consensus on rfc-interest and
> assuming that represented consensus of RFC users, and others
> dependent on them, or even that of the IETF, may be what got us
> into this mess.
>   
>     john\
> 
> --On Saturday, November 30, 2019 18:46 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> It seems that it ought to take a consensus call (here,
>> rfc-interest, somewhere else?) to change the default output
>> prouced by the IETF tools.   The question of pagination of
>> output was more contentious than I would have expected in
>> previous rounds.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 11/30/2019 5:58 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> On 11/30/19 5:22 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 21:26, Henrik
>>>> Levkowetz<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>>>> If being able to generate paginated text output for
>>>>> published v3 RFC XML files is desirable, I'm happy to add a
>>>>> switch to do that.
>>>> Please do.
>>>
>>> Yes, please do.   Though IMO this should be the default.
>>> (paginated, not  necessarily including page numbers).
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>