Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 27/10/2020, at 8:51 AM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 02:09:59PM -0500, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> Who could point me to an RFC and a page# in that RFC (;-) that does
>>> actually include the magical words like "THERE SHALL BE NO RFC
>>> REPRESENTATION WITH PAGE NUMERS" ? Would really appreciate not having
>>> to read through the whole list of the RFC.
>> 
>> 7990 section 7.3
>> 
>> 7994 section 4.1 (doesn't mention page numbers explicitly, but their absence
>> is a direct consequence of this section's requirements).
> 
> Thank, Robert
> 
> Section 4. of 7994 mentions a paginated text format (58 lines/page at most).
> Where are those text files ?

On the canonical site.  e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994>

Jay

> 
> Cheers
>    Toerless
> 
>>>  then we're probably out of luck anyhow. If
>>> this could be driven by the community, i wonder what WG it would need to
>>> go to to have ough consensus applied to it.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>>     Toerless
>>> 
>>>>>   If we're going to add every tweak that one person wants, it's going to
>>>>> get awfully expensive.
>>>> That's a terrible generalization to bring to the question I was pointing at.
>>>> _This_ tweak is extremely cheap - the code already has to produce these
>>>> numbers for internet-drafts, so the cost is a flag.
>>>> 
>>>> The cost of a well-known published set of documents that look like RFCs but
>>>> have had some changes made is different and should be addressed separately.
>>>> (I'll point here to the inline errata for pre-v3 format rfcs.)
>>>> 
>>>>>> The RFC editor does not publish an epub format, for example. If
>>>>>> someone were to contribute an epub formatter that was reasonable to
>>>>>> merge and maintain, we should merge that. Allowing the tools to
>>>>>> produce page numbers for local use falls pretty close to that
>>>>>> doesn't it?
>>>>> No, it's something the IETF explicitly considered and rejected when it
>>>>> designed the new format.
>>>> Which "it"? If you meant epub, RFC7990 says
>>>> 
>>>>> 7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats
>>>>> 
>>>>> 7.4.1.  EPUB
>>>>> 
>>>>>     This format is intended for use by ebook readers and will be
>>>>>     available for RFCs after the requirements have been defined.  No
>>>>>     document on this topic is currently available.
>>>> That certainly isn't rejection - certainly not of creating epub, and not
>>>> even of publishing things in epub in the long run. We had to choose what was
>>>> feasible with the initial tooling effort, and epub didn't make _that_ cut.
>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
>>>>> Dummies",
>>>>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> 
> -- 
> ---
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]

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