Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> Mon, 26 October 2020 21:15 UTC
Return-Path: <jgs@juniper.net>
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 E99CD3A0F0F; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=XlZ8d8ll; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=eLITBs7y
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 Y04AT7atobII; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 7ACDD3A0F06; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108162.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09QL7sLW017975; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:14:51 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=HL2cBB7aFrDaO0ZjmZoSKzFQ8WUUUHw9MioibsxeGYs=; b=XlZ8d8ll6vajX3BYxpJ3t30sLO7KnU8+0i3xT3mJy1Cs1pZ9OHPk/DZR2qOB2YkIZZGx TF+geCrD7TQZqNeV1+S0oS+G8b2DP8kKG4smHv0mdGAeZ3MtjPPhL3QCGkwWVnpMTwZA ThBVlrDjQ7tFYGRTicflO6a1m0EQsAvuRk19jEjHJiS95KN0jEd1/ycy9St3SFZazcEI O/JJK53YZ6dUKKrwiIcOKxMtzWWyr9fv74pwn18YtL1dDTOuGacjT76d7FUkI4Ueuggp hBjtL3qyCqMpGaRm9i6fNtip7y6ymdyM3XImW0/5hhf4KJfHqcq80hI5coPjuRywjEOs 8A==
Received: from nam02-sn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02lp2053.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.36.53]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 34cjh9376n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:14:51 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Eb1tuEui/LjXTFYgogWRf5J2VxnfRicsaYHcP5BYRXgqm2F2wgxjxckanDKLOHedz/AgAu6V3LWXpYZBGnEF65BZWf0ax9+6HTiEq/Bc3eIozhqaCDT0h9ogLgueZsDoFSIdLcekXcTH9/7McsrVGhtl+TNe1S6HixlbJ3X9ysvEjbkaZrQTtMNICOMTsyXv5/jvTiKhcf9wsA41wjMzbG4fRGN+6J7sD2UwyKQv13f/qJdYGscMUpVBrG1aCaW4abhIQQgVzeWnJDpVlHKy9EhrLNGDxhw8OH3F7rdt9nODHOKv+r6dBlB+i5eoBJKzYr9Q7tOcgclMVvZlV8dz+w==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HL2cBB7aFrDaO0ZjmZoSKzFQ8WUUUHw9MioibsxeGYs=; b=HhOwlxA1oLM4wVXVVt+LCOqv9ZKnvHyEWAIlk9LKuFBdupj0Rywevk93UfZ93ppG91ePOnQmKnAl+4zoriD84QtgfysWvdr/NQck9HUP7T411Ua0cVB81wo5g0T4qYupB6VeX+Mf5Ngiqa+gpWrhxAYNuAV8r4ZPUERSz/X43Rbfo2IYIjX9vSsmgYLwEAYnHTsKIXv5wqtW9I1mF6iBz91hKjtScNPIIjN1qWaIaNRf4kY1cZ7eaxt5gCCwhCjee0GwuCjItJpolJMNoT2mJidUlI48Y2GuYCWPmYdWhwa9/ld+Xp0/PXLmKzSUdKPYQ1pCy18UtvOahAT304HYAg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HL2cBB7aFrDaO0ZjmZoSKzFQ8WUUUHw9MioibsxeGYs=; b=eLITBs7y/AXsGRTuIZR5WVmfG8rp0UCFyl0f1N0vDb1goN8hrsM2QG8VDAbxMTOWSdk5I8gAfKng9LTOJ1muTPeDYMMaYW3eY3MvcWG1fGgQVMH3rW6n8NuRNcIG1IC9TcrZmhFgjCeI9Ony3VkkrmZHAFZmHnqjgkBY0/+7nVM=
Received: from MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:c4::20) by MN2PR05MB6493.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:dc::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3499.4; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:14:49 +0000
Received: from MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d98c:bc2d:3620:9b38]) by MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d98c:bc2d:3620:9b38%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3499.017; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:14:37 +0000
From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "wgchairs@ietf.org" <wgchairs@ietf.org>, "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "rsoc@iab.org" <rsoc@iab.org>, "ietf@johnlevine.com" <ietf@johnlevine.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Thread-Topic: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Thread-Index: AQHWq8nMCYpO5VS1YEG8krmFqjboKKmqYm8A
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:14:37 +0000
Message-ID: <7FA8EF59-5CDE-42B9-A487-520531EEA1F0@juniper.net>
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> <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <03976f9f-7f49-7bf7-ce29-ee989232a44d@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <03976f9f-7f49-7bf7-ce29-ee989232a44d@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 811283c4-0b40-44d5-b972-08d879f4253e
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR05MB6493:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR05MB6493B4CDF6854329C232F769AA190@MN2PR05MB6493.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: M6fIhkEGniBzICoNpQXFbLcBVvX2/LHVm/DQI6FP2w2zwa76sUhd06F3NH0j6EceLGrLbmy5jKzAT7xqQJtPSUj8hVileba23BWhyBDdrPQtInCNFFqzKRrawdLabGRxhzEYBiIEZ0UvLkVhPny1WtI5hNGZwCfRUI4gHwKb/l62ELSq88/pKMHo5bEQw2sqbNrUJVMhE692lg7m3Lf0Uki1R8z+B+7EJOf9DSsk/Q+MXZG6a1xDMH30QvvxMjMWEC9Yx6CEZY8bT1RDc6ABdGE62UG6xjtlqHDorTRUPZO3TIvDcr+cqrHdJ3HLscQT
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(376002)(366004)(6916009)(8936002)(76116006)(186003)(26005)(5660300002)(4326008)(91956017)(86362001)(66556008)(66446008)(478600001)(64756008)(2616005)(33656002)(66946007)(83380400001)(66476007)(8676002)(53546011)(316002)(6486002)(71200400001)(6512007)(6506007)(2906002)(36756003)(54906003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7FA8EF595CDE42B9A487520531EEA1F0junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR05MB6109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 811283c4-0b40-44d5-b972-08d879f4253e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Oct 2020 21:14:37.5244 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: L+5rcQy+0uVkGxsGqsPc+rHAPgLuuu1Aa1VcyqEIUex4IYG5fSN+vD6LcMuz8GOG
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR05MB6493
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-10-26_17:2020-10-26, 2020-10-26 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=968 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010260138
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zCixjZKlJJ0Hl8RU43DCTswkPGc>
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 21:15:06 -0000
On Oct 26, 2020, at 2:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote: As Julian Reschke observed on the rfc-interest list, since the new RFC format was implemented: page numbers should not be used to refer to parts of the RFC, because page breaks vary with output formats So I can only see confusion if people use page numbers for any purpose whatever. So it doesn't matter if people want page numbers; they're now useless. So I won't be answering a poll, and I don't think the results are interesting. The argument that page numbers are harmful as a way of referring to a section of the RFC is reasonable. The argument that page numbers are harmful for *any* *purpose* *whatever* is not reasonable. To offer one glaringly obvious counterexample, people (I, for one) sometimes print RFCs for the purpose of reading them. Sometimes we want to make use of some kind of facility for indexing from a list of headings to facilitate direct access to the right section of the pile of printout. A table of contents, in short. This is literally what tables of contents were invented for. They remain useful for this purpose… unless some bright spark chooses to remove the page numbers from them, because they forgot what tables of contents are FOR. (Also, I think the use of the ToC for quickly estimating a document’s throw weight is a valid one. I previously suggested associating a BogoPages metric with each non paginated RFC for this purpose.) —John
- Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (w… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) … Robert Sparks
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… John Levine
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John Scudder
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Carsten Bormann
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Matty K
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? David Noveck
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Keith Moore
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: RFC mutation, with or without page numbers John Levine
- RE: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew Campling
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Matthew Kerwin