IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 02 November 2020 18:43 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 7815B3A091C; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:43:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.697 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 qywZrmFXxeoO; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:43:38 -0800 (PST)
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 E46753A0ED9; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476A8F4070D; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:42:55 -0800 (PST)
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 56E92F4070D for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:42:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 71UcEplN2E3k for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B26DF4070C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.30.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 0A2Igr7A009911 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:42:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1604342575; bh=ZuFgqI70Cg8qohDJiPwgbFYWfgVw8OQ4AIxpWd1mM30=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Y7ikBb58ESLknJWcee51WPs2E+FnkkHx7MYd1Ex8agRY+q0rd6aNAKWnUEqOFIwe8 8UJ7V1BSoTgfHNYDK1hcd8pi8zJzQPmbqMDJXX/RqPiGbOQuzsRWqkZBmBGhP48jQM IflliualHFjLEM7ELa6irmQmjUNWrzBMdUfUF6/8=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.30.41] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <A05242FC-C38C-474F-A2AC-412329CA5C52@isc.org> <CAKq15ve-kAFZWH_f7=1XXC5PfxvO-sAzppB1fVTyqUufLftkVg@mail.gmail.com> <D2DB703DBF2A44A19B8F80DD@PSB> <CAKq15vdFVkG6_grNtqUqq-yDwj9QQcHJFZB5+RB-8fdxQXhFSw@mail.gmail.com> <fa36e919-b1a0-5b3c-9b42-54c6fdaadfb@iecc.com> <e8554ea2-1849-279f-733d-5798de8817b9@gmail.com> <26d1ff54-777f-884b-e35-d91e9fe59662@iecc.com> <00a1fc15-7559-96c6-7cd7-3ae5afd62237@gmail.com> <a34f219b-7c76-4b48-4844-5af3cd4f344@iecc.com> <be8dce95-2b4c-52c8-7eda-8a9b127a6dd4@gmail.com> <cdc14c1-54c9-5273-584c-ddb656912952@iecc.com> <5F9FDB7E.1080805@btconnect.com> <ae44e31b-964a-7901-4883-72abb0dbb8d3@gmx.de> <5F9FF8EA.9020809@btconnect.com> <bfa63584-1f49-1370-65d0-a217dcc4dbc5@gmx.de> <e530ccdc-6587-13dd-df51-29fc0c0b2fcd@nostrum.com> <752c6c5d-eab0-966f-141f-a7d402fdf4fe@gmx.de> <61673811-f47f-7122-2260-527bdec591d6@nostrum.com> <fb102886-22b1-f92e-bac8-336f4e74316d@gmx.de>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <1ccf550a-7a32-0a7e-d599-5ed65b8923ae@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 12:42:53 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fb102886-22b1-f92e-bac8-336f4e74316d@gmx.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] 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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 11/2/20 12:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Am 02.11.2020 um 19:02 schrieb Robert Sparks:
>> Re-adding the context you dropped:
>> ...
>
> I didn't realize that this was actually the point you were making.
>
>> ... >> For the v3 transition, I'm still more on the fence that it's 
>> too soon
>>> to break people's toolchains just because we can. At some point, when
>>> there's not such a mix of historic text files that have to be
>>> processed along with the new things (which may or may not be in v3
>>> format while they are internet drafts), then sure - we can say "Get
>>> with the times". But I don't think those times are here yet.
>> I'm puzzled that you didn't find the exact point of disagreement in
>> that, but I'll try to restate it:
>>
>> Some people have repeatedly held the position it's ok to disrupt
>> existing toolchains because what we're creating is so much better and
>> breakage will make people use the new thing. Others think that a longer
>> period of transition allowing older toolchains to continue working is
>> important.
>
> My recollection is that we preserved support for plain text exactly
> *because* we did not want to disrupt existing tool chains. And we did
> not, right?
>
> What was news to me is that there are documents which have
> artwork/sourcecode that spans 50 pages, and thus people would like to
> use page numbers. I don't recall that use case being mentioned in
> context of the format transition.
>
> IMHO, publishing large blobs of source code as-is is weird. We publish
> specs for *readers*, not for automatic processing. Is this specific to
> the YANG community, or does it apply to other areas as well?

ABNF can get pretty large (certainly more than one traditional page).

So can the ASN.1 module representations used in security drafts.

I don't think 50 pages is common for those cases, but more than one 
probably is.

>
> Best regards, Julian
>
_______________________________________________
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