Re: [art] New RFCs text formatting

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sun, 01 December 2019 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 5B9971200CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 10:17:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 4Z9hH8GHPmMm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 10:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC5951200C7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 10:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [169.254.250.7] (76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xB1IGGp4023933 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 11:16:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70] claimed to be [169.254.250.7]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [art] New RFCs text formatting
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 10:17:44 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <07F05BB0-9440-44AF-BDF3-5CC581D76871@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <6EA0235C-BC0F-466D-8222-9F1C557421E1@network-heretics.com>
References: <86428447-b3d5-92b0-b404-2b94a5915385@foobar.org> <6EA0235C-BC0F-466D-8222-9F1C557421E1@network-heretics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tUQm4SoBOXTiBkWbbBw4sMOHiZY>
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: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 18:17:47 -0000

On 1 Dec 2019, at 9:52, Keith Moore wrote:

> Pagination should be removed from plain text RFCs only if there’s 
> rough consensus that nobody prints RFCs anymore - not because a few 
> individuals think that nobody should do that, or think that they’re 
> in a position to dictate how RFCs are used.

One can easily print text files that have no pagination; we do that all 
the time. In fact, using unpaginated text files completely removes the 
question of "which paper size will most people want for pagination".

However, it seems that this entire thread is being continued by people 
who have not read RFC 7994, which requires pagination for the RFC 
output. Why is this being rehashed three years after the last-call 
discussion of this document?

--Paul Hoffman