Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 26 October 2020 22:06 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 C333D3A1043; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 ZE2hn6Zxebkp; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:06:51 -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 4B92F3A101A; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A194F40789; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:06:40 -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 28BF0F40788 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:06:39 -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 556bZd66Mo2N for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6F18F40789 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1kXAdW-00033N-W5; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:06:42 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:06:36 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <7879175D0ABBB5401B02FEA6@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <03976f9f-7f49-7bf7-ce29-ee989232a44d@gmail.com>
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.c om> <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> <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <03976f9f-7f49-7bf7-ce29-ee989232a44d@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] 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: wgchairs@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, rsoc@iab.org, ietf@johnlevine.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
Brian, I look at the same information and come to a different conclusion (quite independent of the question of whether a poll at this point is a useful exercise)... --On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 07:56 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > As Julian Reschke observed on the rfc-interest list, since the > new RFC format was implemented: > >> page numbers should not be used to refer to parts of the >> RFC, because page breaks vary with output formats Cross references (and other references) to page numbers have been discouraged since at least RFC 1543 (in 1993) and banned soon after that, to the point that the RFC Editor from the last half of the 1990s would simply remove such references, replace them with references to section numbers, and complain when sections got too long for convenient referencing. Nothing about restricting references to page numbers is new with the new format. > So I can only see confusion if people use page numbers for > any purpose whatever. So it doesn't matter if people want > page numbers; they're now useless. So I won't be answering > a poll, and I don't think the results are interesting. However, getting from "references to information by page numbers have always been a bad idea, prohibited for a quarter-century, and even more obviously a bad idea as we move to multiple formats" to "any purpose whatsoever" is a big jump. At least some of us have tools and macros floating around that are dependent on pagination and, as an exception to the "referencing" rules, it is still not clear (at least to me) how to build and format a document index using anything else (at least without a lot of effort). There are even simple and obvious reasons: If one is going to print an RFC from the text form (or render it into printable form), something is going to do the pagination and being able to easily estimate the page count may affect how printing is to be set up. FWIW, the questions of "should documents be paginated" and "should the pages be numbered" are also separate ones. Moreover, the argument that pagination (and page numbers) are obsolete and useless for RFCs would be much stronger if the PDF form for new RFCs were not paginated (or at least not numbered) ... but it is both paginated and numbered. And, if the issue is having things lay out well on many different types of devices, eliminating pagination (and headers and footers) to facilitate that is bogus: it would be equally or more reasonable to eliminate (or rethink) line breaks in running text, etc. If one really wants things optimally formatted for a variety of different devices, then the right thing to do is to start from the HTML form and a well-designed style sheet or to go back all the way to the XML, not to try fussing with the ASCII text form. Conclusion: The main arguments that have been given for eliminating pagination, headers and footers, and page numbering --at least those based on different devices and references-- are mostly bogus. So, from my point of view as a fan of pagination in the ASCII form of RFCs, one who has never willingly referenced part of an RFC by page number, this seems to come down to something else entirely: if there is a goal to eliminate (or strongly discourage) the use of ASCII format RFCs in favor of the HTML or PDF forms (or building directly on the XML), then "no page numbers" and "no pagination" are among the first few cuts of a death by 1000 of them. If not, this has all of the hallmarks of a gratuitous change to a format that has been useful to many people for a very long time. john p.s. Just in case I'm the anonymous person John Levine's note referred to, I didn't just "not participate" in the discussion. It was made extremely clear that my input was not welcome, so clear that, after a discussion or two with Heather that I should spend my time in other ways. If there were a significant number of others like me (and I have no way to tell, or even to guess) then claims that the no-pagination form represents community consensus lie somewhere on the scale between "dubious" and "bogus". _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Eliot Lear
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Warren Kumari
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Jay Daley
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Jay Daley
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] Not even sort of a Poll: RFCs with pa… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rfc-i] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs quest… David Noveck
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… David Noveck
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Henk Birkholz
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Henk Birkholz
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … David Noveck
- Re: [rfc-i] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs quest… Fred Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Julian Reschke
- [rfc-i] An attempt to summarize the "page numbers… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Salz, Rich
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Ted Lemon
- [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf document d… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Andrew Campling
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rfc-i] An attempt to summarize the "page num… Julian Reschke