IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 26 October 2020 19:23 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 030AA3A0D33; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 d-4I5BzCnfK4; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:23:16 -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 12A4B3A0E56; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D88CF4075A; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:23:05 -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 C1104F4075A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 EafpiMEx1ceH for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAFB5F40758 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CKl9T2CbRzyry; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 20:23:09 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <034901d6abca$3d3e60d0$b7bb2270$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 20:23:08 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 625432988.8792551-94eb27ec0018f893d54de0e29f4e264c
Message-Id: <50D3D00A-7495-458F-B24F-B555DEA27F6E@tzi.org>
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> <9c512e40-1a82-fdfb-a332-154b42456a5e@nostrum.com> <5f64e230-1aca-7083-9aac-ba497295f80@iecc.com> <adb49858-babf-bbee-07d8-0b73c24e2c22@nostrum.com> <829ef31-28d8-b335-ab4-fe2553aa1cab@iecc.com> <034901d6abca$3d3e60d0$b7bb2270$@olddog.co.uk>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
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: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, rsoc@iab.org
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>

On 2020-10-26, at 20:00, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Are we having this discussion again?

Yes.

> It seems that all the arguments against are being put forward, but that the
> people who like the idea are being told to not reopen the debate.

There is no point in discussing this as an operational concern for RPC or the tools team.
RFC 799x is clear (maybe inconsistent, broken, I-don’t-like-it; but clear).

However, many people who have to use RFCXMLv3 sense that it is time for an RFCXMLv4 (or 3.1, or 3 post-beta, ...) discussion.
That would indeed be the time to look at the experience with v3 as documented in 799x and learn from it.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
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