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

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 10:04 PM Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:

> Sent this question originally only to rfc-interest mailing list,

I suppose that, officially speaking, that is the right mailing list.

but never
> received a reply.

I used to feel bad that I didn't pursue this on rfc-interest, but I now see
this would have been a waste.  Thanks for trying.

Resending now also to wgchairs.
>

You'll get at least one response.

>
> Thanks for any replies to my questions or suggestions what i could try to
> do to get more page numbres back into the non-PDF output formats.
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:57:33AM +0200, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Sorry for being asleep at the wheel,

I think it is OK relying on a self-driving process in this case, since
there was no possibility of death or physical injury.

but i am just recognizing that newer
> > RFCs on tools, datatracker and even in PDF formats do not have page
> numbers
> > in their TOC, and that the original RFCs on rfc-editor do not even
> > have any TOC. Nor is there any pagination in any of the text or html
> > renderings and hence no notion of size/pages. One has to click to the
> > pdf rendering, and scroll to the bottom to know the size of a document.
> >
> > When did this change happen, where was it discussed ?
>

I think it happened with the conversion to v3 xml.  At that time, the
72-character-ragged-right .txt format ceased to be considered canonical
(long overdue in my opinion).  As a result, in accord with some RFC that I
was pointed to, a decision was made (by whom it wasn't clear) to make all
TOCs the same, so that the pdf and text TOCs lost theirs since there was no
way to add them to html which doesn't have them.  The logic is impeccable
if you grant the premises and nobody ever considered rethinking the
premises when it resulted in nearly useless printed documents. Sigh!

>
> > In my defense,

Why would you need a defense? Do you feel under attack?

even though i just had an rfc recently (rfc8815), this
> > whole formatting change totally flew by me even when reviewing changes
> with
> > RFC editor, because all the diffs from RFC editor we discussed still had
> > the old and probably current formatting with
> pagination/TOC-with-page-numbers
> > to the best of my memory, and somehow i didn't read recently any new RFCs
> > since when this change seems to have happened

I bet it happened, when, as the last stage of the RFC editing process, a
conversion was made to v3 xml and then there was no way back.

(yes i know, shame on me).
>

Since this was the first time, I think "Fool me once, shame on them"
applies, even if it is hard to identify "them".

>
> > Curious...
>

I think "insane" is a more appropriate adjective but it needs to be
understood that this is a statement of opinion and should not be understood
as a clinical judgment.

>
> > I actually would very much appreciate a rendering with pagination and
> > page numbers in TOC. What would be the right place to ask for this ?
>

I've asked the xml2rfc people who didn't really respond.

> (probably not rfc editor...)
>

The RFC editor was sympathetic and helpful but has no power to change
things.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure who does.

Currently, the only way to get a newer RFC with page numbers is to edit the
RFC xml to turn it into an I-D. That has problems but is the only way I
know to get a printed document with a useful TOC.

I would expect that the IETF plenary might be an appropriate venue to
discuss this.  If you do pursue this, let people know so they can be up at
4AM EST or 1AM PST and purchase a one-day pass.

>
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
>
>