IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 26 October 2020 17:45 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 D55EA3A0E06; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:45:38 -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=ham 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 fIqC2u3yjgNY; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:45:37 -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 8AE3A3A0DF8; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41887F40719; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:45:27 -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 E94CEF40719 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:45:26 -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 llKMeEWjMddn for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 054D6F40713 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CKj0r1V5gzyR3; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:45:32 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8je85zUHcCOMW6wCy+fiYUPfVE-1sjy3_Xhsxg85ACOkpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:45:31 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 625427131.713449-57a5477236a8e34a04aa15b8a3e9698b
Message-Id: <A062DE7F-4D21-4731-B59C-89232EACAF5C@tzi.org>
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>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
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>
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 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.

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

_______________________________________________
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