IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 26 October 2020 19:00 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 2E3CB3A106D; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:00:42 -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 YpO5UVx9sGhR; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:00:40 -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 D988A3A0E39; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8191CF40711; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:00:21 -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 1802EF40711 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:00:21 -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 dXpEClA-hsEf for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D90FCF4070B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 09QJ0FdG023949; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:00:15 GMT
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAEE122044; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:00:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A53E322048; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:00:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (81-174-211-216.pth-as4.dial.plus.net [81.174.211.216]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 09QJ0E6b032709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:00:15 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'John R. Levine'" <johnl@iecc.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, rsoc@iab.org
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> <d935e027-f45b-fbec-0072-23d1481c3e90@nostrum.com> <41d4240-9a6d-67b2-1c20-3ea7895fe8ca@iecc.com> <9c512e40-1a82-fdfb-a332-154b42456a5e@nostrum.com> <5f64e230-1aca-7083-9aac-ba497295f80@iecc.com> <adb49858-babf-bbee-07d8-0b73c24e2c22@nostrum.com> <829ef31-28d8-b335-ab4-fe2553aa1cab@iecc.com>
In-Reply-To: <829ef31-28d8-b335-ab4-fe2553aa1cab@iecc.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:00:14 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <034901d6abca$3d3e60d0$b7bb2270$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIgpLN+rV39vPD1EaFIFIdxhbAd8AJivZMWAYVkfboB65P9VALTNJHqAVej8jUCOW0SSwFD6sxtAazMXloCckJGxwFlkIh7AxvzxqQB80OHpAHBXwAzArYafhCoMhEHQA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.211.216
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25750.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.903-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--4.903-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25750.002
X-TMASE-Result: 10--4.902600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: QW5G6BKkLTrxIbpQ8BhdbJjhZxhC9CTji+TAnPnbttjhmYLRM9m2iKdy XMgX1wr+MlCD5w5TYgr8+/mWW08rszh37lLsebr4lVHM/F6YkvRLIc4ks149tqq9wgXVNwtgezK Bji0+3F75wkm8ewMhJh4RLrExwn1XIf+ogqnxgeBl2ityh8f8aWLtYwH4l0rOCnaX2vSsl/9r6/ aFjG/XPlL98gpFSk3a76VZ6MQc+Fdx9EmrVy1N/Cjtvm0vFhmt9pLnYtQ99xI8guXXRtiXIBYD2 Ea3Potk4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOt9CpCFLDTHZU3QfwsVk0UbsIoUKaF27lxZRo5leDW1NRTbXn aD0eL7BRwejJ4SJIFwMvw3tV2itvP+ANMJSNRBd/XVpK6nks2MX4MIrDxeJX+ESJHpAUWmYOp28 Byq25tZHPL2WHD8Jkobq1WmNYcl+MXVcJHhN2t1Mjqqxc9rqInqg/VrSZEiM=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: 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>
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Are we having this discussion again?
It seems that all the arguments against are being put forward, but that the
people who like the idea are being told to not reopen the debate.
Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of John
R. Levine
Sent: 26 October 2020 18:55
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>; rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org;
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>; rsoc@iab.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions /
preferences

>> No, it's something the IETF explicitly considered and rejected when it 
>> designed the new format.
>
> Which "it"? If you meant epub, RFC7990 says

No, I meant paginated text RFCs.  The arguments against them, that people 
will misunderstand what they are and use the page numbers as references, 
still seem persuasive to me.  Indeed, what else would they use them for?

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

_______________________________________________
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