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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

On 2020-10-28 15:36, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> No, I don't think so.  I believe all the arguments were germane with
>> respect to publishing RFCs with / without page numbers, but not with
>> respect to letting the tool have a switch to produce a format with
>> page numbers.
> 
> The argument for not having the tool do it is that the tool is
> provided by the IETF, and if the IETF-provided tool does it, its
> output will be (incorrectly) assumed to be canonical and used in
> non-IETF references to IETF documents. If the tool is not provided by
> the IETF, this won’t be an issue.

I don't see any non-IETF organizations generating their own copies of
RFCs in order to refer to page numbers.  They will use and refer to the
versions published by the RFC Editor, and I don't think we're asking for
the published text version to be paginated.

> But let me ask you: why is it not a good solution to put the section
> number and paragraph number in the header?

I haven't expressed any position on this.  

> Doesn’t that accomplish
> the same purpose in a way that can’t be mistakenly used?

So the reason why the authors of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns
asked for page numbers for their work with the RPC staff was summed up to
me as follows (the last draft before the RFC was 673 pages long),
paraphrased by me:

  Their document is huge, and the document may have a community that refers
  to page numbers rather than sections (the document has very deep section
  numbering, e.g., 6.2.1.3.1).

Putting the section numbers in the header would not address their issue
at all.

> You still
> have strictly increasing numbering, the TOC is still useful, and it
> makes the canonical reference format that we actually decided to use
> easier to use.

True as far as it goes, but in my view not so relevant if it doesn't
address a problem that users of the tool are experiencing.


Regards,

	Henrik

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest