IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 26 October 2020 18:11 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 E6D7E3A0E2A; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, 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 (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 bruBIZGERWtC; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:11:56 -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 41AB63A0E53; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3AFF4074D; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:11:45 -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 BACCCF4074D for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 wYhCW-DSGgwr for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6A41F4074C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.30.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 09QIBaHL050682 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:11:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1603735898; bh=m/mz/hsEXh/YG/8RgYwIMBS6dfwMd/PDSDl6MyFZNE8=; h=To:Cc:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Igzi48OCTfN0fbgd6tL6W58OA30TKLvedq803VCuV+YdA1YaSg3HT5/vztNBBrsi/ O9QJQcoifDPnKN5znKkk5JuoRHm9Vq9+I+W37JYSkpTTfsVHbsa+Tn75WcwsoRQZOu pqXhzQh4KdsUHy4EVKlkTQf5BFUty53uH/3bkmrc=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.30.41] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, ietf@ietf.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> <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <cf15f325-df8d-6b3f-0cb4-842d5252a5a3@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:11:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: 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>
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, rsoc@iab.org, ietf@johnlevine.com, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Toerless -

Just to be clear about my other thread on the subject - having xml2rfc 
produce things that look like RFCs that have page numbers in them for 
someone's local use is one thing. Publishing such things is entirely 
different. Confusion about different versions of published things is a 
real consideration. To get to that point, I think you really are talking 
about changing a community consensus set of documents - the output of 
such a poll will be input into some drafts, not just "stand up this 
separate service".

RjS

On 10/26/20 1:01 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Since about RFC8650, newer RFC will not have any renderings with
> page numbers on {datatracker,tools}.ietf.org. See explanation from
> John Levine below.
>
> Not having followed the details of the RFC/XMLv3 standardization process,
> i was surprised by this because i think there is no reason to
> have additional renderings, maybe even only on tools.ietf.org that
> do include page numbers (and technically it does not seem to be a problem
> either).
>
> If you care to express your position,
> i have created a poll for this, please chime in there:
>
> https://www.poll-maker.com/results3188562x294441dA-98
>
> Cheers
>      toerless
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:35:43PM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Could you please explain why RSOC does not want to permit the ability
>>> to have paginated RFC output options ? Also, where and when was this
>>> discussed with the community ?
>> It was discussed in the multi-year process leading to the IAB
>> publishing RFCs 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, and
>> 7998 in 2016. I'm sure you know how to find the discussions in the
>> archives.  Henrik knows all of this and I cannot imagine why he did not tell
>> you the same thing.
>>
>> I am aware there is one recent RFC author who did not participate in
>> the process at all and has been complaining that the text version of
>> his RFC doesn't have page numbers. I've explained this to him more
>> than once, and see no reason to waste more time on it.
>>
>> R's,
>> John

_______________________________________________
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