Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 27, 2020, at 1:59 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

On Oct 27, 2020, at 1:54 PM, John Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
So far, nobody has even attempted to justify this directive, although a zoo of straw men has been paraded through the subsequent follow ups.

Actually, John, I have explained the reasoning behind this twice, as have several other people. If the IETF provides a pagination tool, then people will use it and assume that the page numbers rendered in their version of the document are good to use in referencing the document.

Whether this is a valid concern or not, I can’t say, but that is the justification.

Fair enough. I think this was lost on me for two reasons. The first is the use of the term “pagination”, which means something different from “creation of a table of contents” (I just looked it up to be sure), although admittedly you can’t make a usable ToC unless the document is paginated first. The second is that I didn’t actually imagine it could be seen as a plausible reason to prevent people from producing their own unofficial versions in the privacy of their homes. I stand corrected.

Needless to say, the concern does not seem valid to me.

—John

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest