Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] what metric replaces page-count?

Paul Hoffman <> Mon, 12 April 2021 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7C63A0E11 for <>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.832
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL=1.31, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZU5DAogLKWz for <>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Opus1.Proper.COM []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D94C3A0E0F for <>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 13CHXE5H053515 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:33:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: "Paul Hoffman" <>
Cc: rfc-interest <>, tools-discuss <>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:32:45 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20557.1618171860@localhost> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] what metric replaces page-count?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:32:50 -0000

On 12 Apr 2021, at 10:12, Warren Kumari wrote:

> I really disliked the tone of "Time to move on from..." - I understand 
> that
> Richard doesn't happen like this metric - but I'm disappointed that,
> increasingly, if you don't agree with someone in the IETF, the tone 
> pivots
> to implying that there is something wrong with them, or that they are
> stupid, or similar...

A strong +1 to what Warren said. As some of you might remember, I 
opposed the creation of official PDFs because their use should be 
discouraged in normal practice. I still fee that way. However, there's a 
wide gap between "you would likely be better served by the new shiny if 
you gave it a chance" and "you're wrong for wanting the old thing".

I still hope that the v3bis work spends no time on improving the PDF 
format because it hinders the more valuable use cases, but I don't want 
them to deprecate it now that the costs have been sunk and there are a 
few people who find it useful.

--Paul Hoffman