IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Mon, 26 October 2020 18:26 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 583EE3A0E61; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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=kumari-net.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 jbP_NFtKdi2U; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:26:16 -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 8A8E23A0E2D; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1560FF40759; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:26:06 -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 24165F40759 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:26:05 -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=kumari-net.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 lW3pLk0e9dDS for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCB2CF40753 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id a7so13323541lfk.9 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZeMwdqHk5pB+PhCwUyPxZkWRaI7wvDtTUNZpGNThjvY=; b=dsxQUORW/oOlvuPLGx9klQxzGoVnnWwzfFCpSJkUErXiy9wNai4Q0PHOkuRaGIRIVp 9L9bOqikiH5v+D1TDvMO6TOTnNVqMNJ5HWysS+pq7GTdImMJvgJvhKkWFfBGv4k9ivMI RwiFPonYY4eiWutVZlmlzrBoElwdg697jK2sIYPi6uCCZIuSCxh+szdhi7sYsycRUtul gkv0nDRRKaO12s6VrtA2hTiYfG8uI9gRaC1XpDSYcnsbmAINM3dROlGvMZ7FDHaF/v1t M5VmWxMIJE1/kqhiuvIC3Fl9u2KULC038Z78Nkda/sc29MRaFBwd3u6mW3xOh7SrfR2f fZxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZeMwdqHk5pB+PhCwUyPxZkWRaI7wvDtTUNZpGNThjvY=; b=Ff7PWdIvdD3qPvDQBTSP8KRbKFxGgHn/KCWEq2sQBCv+rHNVztncblPOgt0qBtasOy XMU3nHnimjuPCA8YyqVEejXuEvJyvFdy43YMmKg6J90tbxM364OytWMmeMOVCgVkY9YQ 8NnNdk/Ei/dGT8VRcVtMvnvvkcRfIoDKUkFxawCO8HFpsufFuET741vknzfEhcyfLMzz n9l3rjhxvjPMwsarqCUD+RFmZSxeLW27kCpq+HJH4/egSo4HilGVJvd+3LRztLpkNLIH ++46PeB2N9Br4uqDktfAYWm4lyyRWc/biXBFWOQlzfbUhsphgbIYz3mSTKJhmuGimExw D5VQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532K6/cqUJX7EAaNFlpOmGLYap2HUoxTdFYYk+gYHPff++YwlOW+ BRhxpDVsj7G6EmwI+HOHFTKZYYuNkurQwyEZVjHPjw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXfjLvAxguvVWdSeJTlueOtuwlUgv6C0QWOHJm49YxNargRFTiuV45hOvLrqk//jNuTyrYddgEHY8k/B/TJDk=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5dd5:: with SMTP id x21mr5325968lfq.41.1603736758760; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.com> <35EFE952-7786-4E24-B228-9BEE51D3C876@tzi.org> <CADaq8je85zUHcCOMW6wCy+fiYUPfVE-1sjy3_Xhsxg85ACOkpQ@mail.gmail.com> <A062DE7F-4D21-4731-B59C-89232EACAF5C@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <A062DE7F-4D21-4731-B59C-89232EACAF5C@tzi.org>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:25:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJQ93M=Mkxd5H0QxgRUcwCTwVmkwFXjgBrKTnpcksx08g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: 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: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
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 Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 1:45 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
> On 2020-10-26, at 16:04, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Obviously, with canonical XML, there is no good solution to this problem:
> >
> > It's not clear what problem you are referring to.
>
> The problem will become very evident once you get an RFP asking that your product implement the procedure on page 68 of RFC 9815.

Yup -- I've already run into this sort of thing when talking with
authors and others -- I used to be able to say things like "Erm,
section 3, um... just above the bottom of the page..." and now it
involves much more quoting, etc.
I also liked to collect stats on documents that I review -- e.g:
(7,635 pages, ~31" / 79cm / 15 reams of single-sided paper).
Gamifying reviews makes them easier...


I really like the concept / history / continuity of RFCs being the
same over these many years; I didn't really participate in the v3
discussions, and am sad that the page numbers and similar have
changed...
W

>
> You cannot really argue this based on whether people SHOULD be using section numbers etc.  This is a real downside in the real world.
>
> Now whether that downside is overriding all the other upsides of having page numbers, can be a subject of discussion.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf
_______________________________________________
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