Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Ronald Tse <tse@ribose.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 00:32 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 160493A117B; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.1, 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=ribose.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 Ua7q9BYYrdz0; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:29 -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 D06673A1133; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC355F40798; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:18 -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 86F79F40798 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ribose.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 e0oQ-Xlq3-z3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1300077.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.130.77]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2237F40794 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=CiIaU70GqGZ55Jhzkf/rt04IvfVfRVfbq6SeOujl4SIZeeMdMvttvVCsokYuKjK5ldD8dV31z2UNpDUzIdOjrkWC0b1z65jlpG9JxRJ7B6i0/qKdbGPD1BZ+ge+ARwZ8bfpcKh30Dfbqtm3oAFaUFrjNt03fQzUwuX4eJObJoowbOsQPwdHWzcgYL0FFVl8zaULBSHDA4H71hwNHVl7na1mTfBdQwNqvdZfUnuiUr4bO5CF2WibMVw/xtdiUHZlLsaU6ME4Ed1Wdt/2mbbmlClr/U7Rxz8h5HMqb4+eUB4LL4M+zXA9ISyXgaM9N5ObxKRofKXwTkKPDBcjWDroZaw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Me1/nGkcbmznsOymgSky5mTT9GI6mVn4qw+1eOmOWVU=; b=NAWbVftM+LWR+UoRu9QIElJsFaPWThEEFvuHzrWtCgKGs35nY0C6cAMYa9JZmQrwH+RemSX6xMymLqPTzCne2Iqa7+/5i/QTTNjapEH3FQ6Ct9LgELvcItW6RwI2E1l6h72j2OSbrO8szrBKyTL/6t/vuDnOEX+LA7wm8DQ4r1XQRCqhyCbqRi/RBG/f/G0cUPQ1nRTIUeAcqxVMSCCIphRckCbzUaKZkYg5M7ciFgTy2cJH6n8P/SPxwnM6nkgnZzj1vnKYqbvt67WteQVhk6MkJjq7PZqtTmnm0zRb1Y7qAFvHx/62KixHgj5u4WNGvPDDLnBdgLflXAZmw+gr3g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ribose.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ribose.com; dkim=pass header.d=ribose.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ribose.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Me1/nGkcbmznsOymgSky5mTT9GI6mVn4qw+1eOmOWVU=; b=FLJqjKVj79KB/TJ4k05YsHzMoXAuIZ4/qdQlNzc6xBYQW9EEA2NxpLUju1EqgTBHpPCP0CP4XPtNUrOnAb0KdGvp9Zix3Irob7RMHCOQ6beVvxr2EQMI+HWwb8+qGNXzzrFAqpwNY2x+fgDa2WnUBy/CJVqZilBHgyURFrZEqGM=
Received: from HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:203:98::14) by HK0PR01MB1908.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:203:21::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3477.25; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:32:11 +0000
Received: from HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::b8:4b19:ebf4:7724]) by HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::b8:4b19:ebf4:7724%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3477.029; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:32:10 +0000
From: Ronald Tse <tse@ribose.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "wgchairs@ietf.org" <wgchairs@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "rsoc@iab.org" <rsoc@iab.org>
Thread-Topic: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Thread-Index: AQHWq8nHuGg0JtFOcUGgjys0Ih1qXamqaPaxgAAmtQCAAAn2gA==
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:32:10 +0000
Message-ID: <75918E93-96A2-4C9A-9D60-570E7A0E1B22@ribose.com>
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.c om> <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> <65374aef-e018-7bc8-ce50-d5c0a3982bf7@gmail.com> <DE3C9D6AE8EF94D87936DAE7@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <DE3C9D6AE8EF94D87936DAE7@PSB>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
authentication-results: jck.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;jck.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ribose.com;
x-originating-ip: [58.153.245.161]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b5d6bccc-28c8-4e6a-0678-08d87a0fbe61
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HK0PR01MB1908:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HK0PR01MB19082484B749783F51B6035ED7160@HK0PR01MB1908.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6430;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: DjV8Zd5iLnx5osB4wbDn058h1UJ0qTnWW1Wg87gB274RSV1UW8f/G7Ja1eygiDEY3mhqcoAI4hr3fxr/8eXLVxJHZPDXwkbYg89Qg0drGK1xxp24LWzOOAbv1IrA24pYRDwzcdQm3ZEFA5ooohrAkLJhcWCPYskqbpH3LOjU0C3oJOX5T95ImMLB6OCxbSHciYkBWm8oH2WCou05Cj+1EjT4eFJRTFvQlPGZznNc3HQby9OJCHx7q1wi4IAnytVvDPDtWteY3j7LV1I+bMWlbtQMCxW6CbIQIGeTUWMmOq+jL9e52YVOE2etSnfPWetVeos/l9bSxnVQhZFXex89OIFgVd6lFhW1k82+1ppQ+lCNZ/qHyIVOdqz6vnjG/alZKp8UUo2hDde3TLPvTG67dg==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(39830400003)(396003)(136003)(376002)(366004)(166002)(66556008)(91956017)(83380400001)(8936002)(66946007)(64756008)(6506007)(66476007)(71200400001)(66446008)(76116006)(2616005)(36756003)(53546011)(33656002)(478600001)(4326008)(5660300002)(6512007)(8676002)(966005)(86362001)(2906002)(110136005)(186003)(26005)(6486002)(316002)(66574015)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ribose.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b5d6bccc-28c8-4e6a-0678-08d87a0fbe61
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Oct 2020 00:32:10.7434 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: d98a04ff-ef98-489b-b33c-13c23a2e091a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: I3S/IJIE091Z/QTkm0YX8x0yVimLgrmpX4Gvu+Wyzf8J1AHfGkfvImS20NZci3aK
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HK0PR01MB1908
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: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1834955464620235337=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
My two cents: why don’t we just run a poll to see what the “consensus” is? To me, standardizing page numbers is the wrong direction — one of the features of XML RFC is to allow rendering content into different formats. Having page numbers for the ASCII version is fine (it’s only being done by xml2rfc anyway), but requiring these numbers inside the XML is putting the cart before the horse. Ron _____________________________________ Ronald Tse Ribose Inc. On Oct 27, 2020, at 7:56 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com<mailto:john-ietf@jck.com>> wrote: --On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 10:37 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote: 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.) But, first of all, if the only need is to print (eccentric or not) for off-line reading were the only issue, then that is an argument in favor of PDF and perhaps abolishing the text form, not crippling it, unless one happens to like the fixed-pitch font (definitely eccentric). The people whose needs were set aside were those of us who routinely use text editors (of the emacs or vi species and their clones), and personal RFC-specific macros in those editors, to work with RFCs, many of whom have been working that way for a long time (a few since before there was an IETF). As to "set aside", there were at least some IETF participants with those needs (or, if you prefer, habits), along with those who argued for keeping the xml2rfc v3 specification rather closer to generic markup (reducing rather than increasing the amount of format markup) and inclusion of markup that would make it straightforward to specify references to book chapters and journal articles in relatively standard form. It was made clear to at least a subset of that group that they were (to paraphrase somewhat) a bunch of old farts who, regardless of their prior experience, just did not understand the modern Internet and publishing and therefore would not be listened to no matter what they had to say. That message was rather clear and, since the process was not an IETF one, appeals and the like felt rather hopeless. So, some people just moved on to other things and others concluded that the IETF was on enough of a downhill slide that issues like publication formats made little difference. The good news is that there apparently weren't very many of us. (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. Sure. So does a line count given a format. But, while I'm reconciled to do it, time I spend re-understanding and then rebuilding macros that are a couple of decades old is time that isn't spent on IETF substantive work. The question is whether whatever benefits are gained by eliminating pagination from RFCs -- presumably gains to those who continue to use the text form rather than HTML or PDF because the latter two groups are irrelevant -- are sufficient to justify that. john Regards Brian _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org<mailto: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
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Eliot Lear
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Warren Kumari
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Jay Daley
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs q… Jay Daley
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] Not even sort of a Poll: RFCs with pa… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rfc-i] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs quest… David Noveck
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… David Noveck
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Henk Birkholz
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Henk Birkholz
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … David Noveck
- Re: [rfc-i] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs quest… Fred Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Julian Reschke
- [rfc-i] An attempt to summarize the "page numbers… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Salz, Rich
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page num… Ted Lemon
- [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf document d… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Andrew Campling
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] The role of txt format in ietf docume… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rfc-i] An attempt to summarize the "page num… Julian Reschke