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

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 10/26/20 2:03 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:43:33PM -0500, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Well, again, its important to  "to be published" to be clear what you're
>> talking about. I've heard more, and achieving the consensus in the documents
>> for what would be published was not easy. I expect it will continue to be a
>> topic of consideration, but acknowledge that for the published formats,
>> changing it will require going through the full consensus process again.
> Who could point me to an RFC and a page# in that RFC (;-) that does
> actually include the magical words like "THERE SHALL BE NO RFC
> REPRESENTATION WITH PAGE NUMERS" ? Would really appreciate not having
> to read through the whole list of the RFC.

7990 section 7.3

7994 section 4.1 (doesn't mention page numbers explicitly, but their 
absence is a direct consequence of this section's requirements).

>
> Technically, a small RFC doing an update on this with e.g.: a text format
> with the traditional pre-reorg formatting and any derived renderings that
> do not change the pagination - would be quick to write. But if this
> has to be driven by IAB,
It would.
>   then we're probably out of luck anyhow. If
> this could be driven by the community, i wonder what WG it would need to
> go to to have ough consensus applied to it.
>
> Cheers
>      Toerless
>
>>>    If we're going to add every tweak that one person wants, it's going to
>>> get awfully expensive.
>> That's a terrible generalization to bring to the question I was pointing at.
>> _This_ tweak is extremely cheap - the code already has to produce these
>> numbers for internet-drafts, so the cost is a flag.
>>
>> The cost of a well-known published set of documents that look like RFCs but
>> have had some changes made is different and should be addressed separately.
>> (I'll point here to the inline errata for pre-v3 format rfcs.)
>>
>>>> The RFC editor does not publish an epub format, for example. If
>>>> someone were to contribute an epub formatter that was reasonable to
>>>> merge and maintain, we should merge that. Allowing the tools to
>>>> produce page numbers for local use falls pretty close to that
>>>> doesn't it?
>>> No, it's something the IETF explicitly considered and rejected when it
>>> designed the new format.
>> Which "it"? If you meant epub, RFC7990 says
>>
>>> 7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats
>>>
>>> 7.4.1.  EPUB
>>>
>>>      This format is intended for use by ebook readers and will be
>>>      available for RFCs after the requirements have been defined.  No
>>>      document on this topic is currently available.
>> That certainly isn't rejection - certainly not of creating epub, and not
>> even of publishing things in epub in the long run. We had to choose what was
>> feasible with the initial tooling effort, and epub didn't make _that_ cut.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
>>> Dummies",
>>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest