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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 26 October 2020 21:37 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 0C7AC3A0FF7; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.445
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, 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 (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.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 7CfdPOTCOO8A; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:50 -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 5E6F93A0FC1; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15D2F40778; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:39 -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 CAB13F40778 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:38 -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=gmail.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 wn6y8POgJiWj for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x636.google.com (mail-pl1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B22A7F40776 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x636.google.com with SMTP id b19so5378372pld.0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TDD3RengJbqvjDMqR3CmLSfMPBPnLQpBTCV9Z4hjmuU=; b=kSEJNrdU/gQBJGYf4A65oIXvv+BqVr/WBPGALlg8sfs2PYEdw/WhW0EB1upFSFGOuI H35n5nJjFRCm7pDbqxphB1kkONLDIyY5r84FnDyVrCUqGIeZnQoepi3OcDNO38WoKsf4 tZEpzBMBvZz7zrx+auUTNrt87OMPWfyEhwHglVGVkjkkIil4Fpg5x+LLYDjfZLThq9px LJw8Y95vGYegamEIdKPhKVJ1rKPWau6UTtYUCZLKmTk/YMxELWFPUFFflaeYKD2ssY/i cuICMAwcmGVm8xvnTB6g5UdZiivJ9JxGQSJ84LetNGO5igtfCvMKQ6hm/otf5DlIQe0y k8ng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TDD3RengJbqvjDMqR3CmLSfMPBPnLQpBTCV9Z4hjmuU=; b=rGOLK7hEbg1RofUQHLwOlyBzZiKgSyj7/XqWlnsiTktqw/f/QJZYUXEy1mN8BvmWhp u9sjsqpg2rDbvGXE0C/PFqx1oclp138c21RpevxXZ2HGdeMdlo+T3SPh2QjtY5BLL9Vh G6Z/1tNBNTgyZishL/Nknfg126bZ44la4vndxjJdYjGpO1NyDP6VKxUKGGyYhMl9D8wJ TcsZqwWbHNKNVmpohq3VTZcoNJd0Xf+GM/yjMn0NhSHks1Ev2W87Og8pGKaN3KUgneko eyi9Thzrj6BJ5ccc+UwMhy0+OoxZXe0NqiSqeh0aM1pAAlB14Cz8yEmSiC0hmtg8AxoO E5jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532O+eMDsyNrCouozQsoPX6IwD74czzL+7rkPkoZrySvf1dhhpfr 9L+CYJflMcWlGXzPjgfgtCEcpfxWigUIPQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzT57wF+7JNT11iT2iejF6ZXfSdbgmyOeYkRL7c/B2/Xy1TOmgBSgSzXrhWsBdv9iUuUfM/nw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:1f45:: with SMTP id y5mr17800241pjy.16.1603748265796; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.2.2.3] ([103.23.18.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z22sm4447672pfa.220.2020.10.26.14.37.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.com> <35EFE952-7786-4E24-B228-9BEE51D3C876@tzi.org> <20201026150241.GK48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20201026162814.GP39170@kduck.mit.edu> <20201026164036.GO48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1a56dc3b-56ef-3ffb-a12b-44d5e0d0f835@levkowetz.com> <20201026171931.GP48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b733240-fc78-5a71-8920-ff84fbf64287@iecc.com> <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <03976f9f-7f49-7bf7-ce29-ee989232a44d@gmail.com> <7FA8EF59-5CDE-42B9-A487-520531EEA1F0@juniper.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65374aef-e018-7bc8-ce50-d5c0a3982bf7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:37:39 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7FA8EF59-5CDE-42B9-A487-520531EEA1F0@juniper.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] 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: "wgchairs@ietf.org" <wgchairs@ietf.org>, "ietf@johnlevine.com" <ietf@johnlevine.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "rsoc@iab.org" <rsoc@iab.org>
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 27-Oct-20 10:14, John Scudder wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2020, at 2:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> As Julian Reschke observed on the rfc-interest list, since the
>> new RFC format was implemented:
>>
>>> page numbers should not be used to refer to parts of the
>>> RFC, because page breaks vary with output formats
>>
>> So I can only see confusion if people use page numbers for
>> any purpose whatever. So it doesn't matter if people want
>> page numbers; they're now useless. So I won't be answering
>> a poll, and I don't think the results are interesting.
> 
> The argument that page numbers are harmful as a way of referring to a section of the RFC is reasonable.
> 
> The argument that page numbers are harmful for *any* *purpose* *whatever* is not reasonable. To offer one glaringly obvious counterexample, people (I, for one) sometimes print RFCs for the purpose of reading them. Sometimes we want to make use of some kind of facility for indexing from a list of headings to facilitate direct access to the right section of the pile of printout. A table of contents, in short. This is literally what tables of contents were invented for. They remain useful for this purpose… unless some bright spark chooses to remove the page numbers from them, because they forgot what tables of contents are FOR.

Well yes... but iirc the input to the new format discussion was that most people read RFCs and drafts on-screen and mostly with the htmlized versions. So the needs of the occasional eccentrics who print them for off-line reading were set aside. (I can say that because I am such an eccentric.)
 
> (Also, I think the use of the ToC for quickly estimating a document’s throw weight is a valid one. I previously suggested associating a BogoPages metric with each non paginated RFC for this purpose.)

Well, the byte count serves fairly well for that too.

Regards
   Brian

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest