IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 28 October 2020 14:52 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 3C91F3A0A13; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 T_uV30eQD3wW; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:52:04 -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 92D4A3A0A10; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6E8F4073C; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:51:51 -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 83447F4073C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 13qb6qYBxcy2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2e]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4A58F4073B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com with SMTP id t6so2518502qvz.4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=4iPx2Kze8HEn09NNyPbZJWmi9ZAmpV1EJM8zNgaSnP4=; b=Ur+x32l38PO4jmoIng+yoa5Zu2Ppqd8nlffNp8Wt8zwFjHSeRA3TqqnCIvZO2qDfOZ DJAfX/YxVMK+1firQjS4u3dPbrMETBoeyDydKqTyK15f9CF0Em10Wh4/MbBE6CbRlIdE eb2bElIeEZ4Q/TVMhiS4D7yQuuzBFCmtt0lzZjIhRcpJp15xKHhoSmAo6RgHGgwR5NdB a8xwbMcXv5NNJ8tAH5mmqIxFPCSuD0e/RfF0fgwOsYMT/FNob2z+FP9RnmMXFYonGKFU ZqoZWgyEVRXbDMf4EZLbeqSlgxrOyrpdzMIJAKNoOP3WyOaFoI0W9ZxZbqONG4Uy+6It yaVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=4iPx2Kze8HEn09NNyPbZJWmi9ZAmpV1EJM8zNgaSnP4=; b=MBIGflNoeaqUTeeKDIH2vVn03qKolYXwKvwZcCj0YA6Rg5jf4cJU81cH9HgjFyEUCm QDztri0tBh/bhOCbNxSLqQ4pbXnBW4FzBqnp0TCY0P2Lvu9JVam5XaUwjlwJxq4qwIoj nTlVRgTLWPXDUxSv9Br6F8z8PQ1GGZhDYrMjiYR+AsTupQAY3d5G5pgiOXqqRmPtWPKE FwUcMXVvP4+m1cd399XBXE/CC4GNc/xy++pjgl7BA8JqrGOiRn2/2EYzRLQNfEY58k2R k7KatoeqCjdKWS13eLWvk5l7dwLPdEbP9u/TM/o8lJBvTgfBhdoPI7IXAAf7SNs7W//c qJOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GS8A9vKnfrtDT8QhbASlhHdeDsEI6wUJd52bjiFovaXbbyF9U jfIrvpjsEU3LAuRSQe0kdnDgtTYLEN07ZA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBSS2qw6q+sKXkjqH7peuqUEeFt3duOExjYm6nF+tmdRJ8TbkevZeEAiYmZWik5GsQ7LJcTw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8d4a:: with SMTP id s10mr8408464qvb.30.1603896718148; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mithrandir.lan (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v65sm3182510qkb.88.2020.10.28.07.51.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <F52F0FC2-A038-4877-83A3-CECFF55847A2@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.11\))
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:51:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <2E06BF66-B436-4BFF-81E7-543CDB68E296@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.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> <2E06BF66-B436-4BFF-81E7-543CDB68E296@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.11)
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" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "rsoc@iab.org" <rsoc@iab.org>, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7911059676292665363=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Oct 28, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> Do we think that organizations using RFC’s and doing “canonical references” to them are running xml2rfc?  I’m skeptical.

We have no data, and I don’t know how we would collect it. But organizations are made up of individuals, and I’ve certainly seen things that are just as perverse happen in the past, so I think if there’s a way to address peoples’ needs that doesn’t have that as a potential outcome, that’s what we should do.


_______________________________________________
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