IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 28 October 2020 15:01 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 83FD83A0A56; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, 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=nostrum.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 DJxaKHkqnECu; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:01:11 -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 80FFA3A0A20; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC899F4073C; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:00:58 -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 77EF4F4073C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 0DHzgGZjNyPg for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2370EF4073B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.30.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 09SF0rcd012417 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:00:54 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1603897255; bh=cdYULZ//qc5QM2MQWg/HbuWb9xLsMAsD/ecIdO6MSEs=; h=To:Cc:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To; b=pQoQLeBfPeafsXla3UxH/VmTg3WJInO0eFzk9ean6kkVgyt9hP+aQQGt6zXurAoyG 0iyOXgBoqmrKFnV3euRYagf2uyUwrBJd3D+GbfFvAjaXDcd9ND+jDMOKbLlabyPGL3 ZIeRNJzbW7aC7QGBp9vTq9s5MWEmuX9h8vLDLH54=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.30.41] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
References: <dd25161f-f8fc-0481-2d06-00907f4068fa@levkowetz.com> <E3D19227-79AF-477A-A929-8D54AAF63F9B@fugue.com> <daf8a9ee-3448-2d96-ec80-7c7553befec2@levkowetz.com> <78BF7E87-FE54-4512-B7CE-55CC6A4F3A68@fugue.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <2ad86c10-d2e5-24b4-32aa-6563b8ddbc50@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:00:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <78BF7E87-FE54-4512-B7CE-55CC6A4F3A68@fugue.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
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: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, rsoc@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9187595572545477338=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 10/28/20 9:36 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com 
> <mailto:henrik@levkowetz.com>> wrote:
>> No, I don't think so.  I believe all the arguments were germane with
>> respect to publishing RFCs with / without page numbers, but not with
>> respect to letting the tool have a switch to produce a format with
>> page numbers.
>
> The argument for not having the tool do it is that the tool is 
> provided by the IETF, and if the IETF-provided tool does it, its 
> output will be (incorrectly) assumed to be canonical and used in 
> non-IETF references to IETF documents. If the tool is not provided by 
> the IETF, this won’t be an issue.

With no hats on (but I clearly have a hat to wear wrt this question) - I 
understand, but am not personally persuaded by that argument.

xml2rfc is used in other fora already, and someone may choose to 
contribute something that the IETF would choose not to use. IETF 
endorsement isn't relevant.

I am more sensitive to the variant of this argument when applied to the 
IETF publishing a puddle of documents that could be seen as official and 
are confusing.

RjS


>
> But let me ask you: why is it not a good solution to put the section 
> number and paragraph number in the header? Doesn’t that accomplish the 
> same purpose in a way that can’t be mistakenly used?  You still have 
> strictly increasing numbering, the TOC is still useful, and it makes 
> the canonical reference format that we actually decided to use easier 
> to use.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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