IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 26 October 2020 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2623A108F; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=cisco.com
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 kZ-kPpoxT9Ws; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 925723A0FB9; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476ABF4073E; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D6AF4073E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3KPpOPu8QNl2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34236F4073B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1557; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1603734915; x=1604944515; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=sO0rpxosxkokjJHE6SQ95JeYKHoox8VRT4iqR5+EoKE=; b=fguwMNSbkrUkUFUANaF7OLJXIEW4zt+WOp7NUz/gwPa8h+wf2Bgxm/GD mg5Tx5tdy9I+HP1vmicB+QXIO25IA/0AP+Bz/e8hj2EcNwEwEwGsgO0BK 9Hj+77ytqs1Wm902gXWXhGYH1/uc+jebsZ5Mx7nz0aY0Gqz1Li8FQGIde g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BDDADrDJdf/xbLJq1gHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAgU8CgXOBJVUBIBIshDyJBYdoJpopgXwLAQEBDQEBGA0KBAEBhEoCggwmOwMNAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVhDIVyAQEBAwEBASFLCwULCxgCAiYCAicwBhMUgxIBglwgD6MJdoEyik4GgQ4qAY1TggCBEScMEIJNPoJcAYFggxczgiwEkBynaoJ0gxaFbpF1Ax+DF4oNhSCPGrAWg18CBAYFAhWBfgEPgVczGggbFTsqAYIKATM+EhkNlgGBI4VDQAMwOAIGAQkBAQMJjkgBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,420,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30584243"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Oct 2020 17:55:09 +0000
Received: from [10.61.194.56] ([10.61.194.56]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09QHt89P007192 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:55:08 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <41d4240-9a6d-67b2-1c20-3ea7895fe8ca@iecc.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:55:08 +0100
Message-Id: <3EE21C2B-E138-4CA9-9904-FE243AE283E1@cisco.com>
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> <d935e027-f45b-fbec-0072-23d1481c3e90@nostrum.com> <41d4240-9a6d-67b2-1c20-3ea7895fe8ca@iecc.com>
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.194.56, [10.61.194.56]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rsoc@iab.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Without taking a position about what happened in the past, if people want to have a say about how decisions are made in the future, there’s an open, community-driven program for that.[1]

Eliot

[1] https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/rfc-editor-future-development-program/



> On 26 Oct 2020, at 18:47, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> 
>> John - you've answered why RFCs are not published with page numbers and where/when the community discussion that took place for that decision.
>> 
>> You haven't answered whether/how the RSOC engaged the community on the question of whether the tools should let someone produce an RFC locally that has page numbers in it for themselves if they want to. The reasoning for not letting the tools produce such a thing is certainly not explicitly captured in the series of RFCs you point to.
> 
> I am not Heather and I do not remember all the details, but I cannot imagine why you would want to reopen this can of worms.
> 
> People can write whatever they want for their own use, but the tools we are paying for produce the output formats that our consensus documents describe.
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email