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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 01/11/2020 14:59, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> What formats do you believe don't have section numbers?  They're in all
>>> three rendered formats and in the XML as tags like "section-3.1".
>>
>> They aren't in raw XML and they aren't in kramdown, so they aren't where
>> an author needs them when processing comments on an I-D. (So, strictly,
>> that isn't an RFC format issue, but it is an issue created by our format
>> choices and it's quite an annoyance.)
>
> Sounds like yet another thing that could be improved with better
> tooling. Adding and updating comments with section numbers isn't exactly
> rocket science.

YANG modules do not have section numbers and can be 50 (five zero) pages 
long and the same identifier (e.g. 'status') can appear multiple times 
in different branches of the schema tree and the tree can be over 10 
levels deep so providing the absolute form of the identifier of the leaf 
that you are commenting on can take more than one line.  Reference by 
page number is so simple (even ADs use it:-).

Tom Petch

>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> .
>
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest