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 14:37 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 F35DA3A09CC; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:37:10 -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 (body 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 6Demtux-GoJr; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:37:09 -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 5E5543A09CF; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BA7F4073B; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:36:56 -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 63B4AF4073B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:36:55 -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 rV8F6jWrkvBI for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x832.google.com (mail-qt1-x832.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63344F40739 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x832.google.com with SMTP id s39so3190107qtb.2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:37:03 -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=artVAHwNiklvXAz3ZvYktuue9l6nOwSWLehT1jEaHbU=; b=Z6YJwMs/YyxstVNvoPF+0GNbxlm3SsP3pKKk6t2eUeAKkhOCj3AXyDWg/x7E4HvHA3 03TPQQLV3cYzlmCEsC1Xq7X99jCjfGWW9vucN6ELhAsPd1+j2rkxCKe3feYQtQ+xLZ/s rK2sxgAfiaEDDy4w0L2MumP7hjOlMYxhIRfRyXifH8+1qsH4AIOOiUSRGqGE2J7RBKnV OoiZ+Pej83VA7X3eSCLRKM+FMZGOmnnYesT1JK7viyt9oHHwE6YVi5Zrk/RFLKCSaFMp TqhXdiWFcl6MD8OyGw0+BcusOnvKrGMs1fszqPlJvnzkqOXHAlLvMpZ+2zyIa3VJ0mpG 0vFA==
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=artVAHwNiklvXAz3ZvYktuue9l6nOwSWLehT1jEaHbU=; b=oLrrHtv0EpMFT4x+DjW44w88Eq1qTj2jvJABeMpjQrZTEDayreMMOjVX4JuF/0EfMm rXwf0wOQzD+QoBlLx9Ft4AcvU2mBCFNo+IcY4iiXq5bdv28yGLFmVQ0+T4ar4AdIqVFk H2wWefGNpiRaAy/7XoMDYrLU5RXNSrF5vF0eAiyw0YkaYFIbIhbJgW/quIq7Xfc5JghY wZN/a7RXKf8SmfKc/SLRyo6LqMlaghKgGLZYLb6qM8V8APkbWVg4g0awrvA66xnuej1P uBGchQF3Pq8kWbWttRj90x13SQ7dFVGNmJnhpZsjZNk6gbXy2LMpYm/Nu1CgoBQN+L+a Ew0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531/mVlAvn6Lo0PgKU8hOzcYFDit9N42yNbmv4aehFJHCN4oL311 IkPTUYlV+FuJIM+vGvDVN5wyig==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw17b1+w/EJALcytVURrnhQA9444YfoOtDMosci2Nar9J8pSRYfl3FuIt5QkRnGYPtDzH37Cw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5a8c:: with SMTP id c12mr6926284qtc.310.1603895821596; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:37:01 -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 z2sm3024146qkl.22.2020.10.28.07.37.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <78BF7E87-FE54-4512-B7CE-55CC6A4F3A68@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.11\))
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:36:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <daf8a9ee-3448-2d96-ec80-7c7553befec2@levkowetz.com>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
References: <dd25161f-f8fc-0481-2d06-00907f4068fa@levkowetz.com> <E3D19227-79AF-477A-A929-8D54AAF63F9B@fugue.com> <daf8a9ee-3448-2d96-ec80-7c7553befec2@levkowetz.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, rsoc@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5593491747486286525=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Oct 28, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> 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.

But let me ask you: why is it not a good solution to put the section number and paragraph number in the header? Doesn’t that accomplish the same purpose in a way that can’t be mistakenly used?  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.


_______________________________________________
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