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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 12 April 2021 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7C63A0E11 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.832
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZU5DAogLKWz for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D94C3A0E0F for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.51] (76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (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 paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70] claimed to be [10.32.60.51]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:32:45 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <D5885B4C-E3A4-4D02-B713-98C962448EE9@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iL6wn83-W9t2H1P0o9k3mvir=WdKU164=C24Y53UsiFiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20557.1618171860@localhost> <F35C8691-ADA2-4DEC-B24A-0DFB5B76567F@tzi.org> <66fd7812-4d2c-bf9d-d4bf-16c501754d7e@gmail.com> <CACB24MtXPct5iOmYSgG5yQVt=-y5=L1nXmkqb4=TsPNfgsQihQ@mail.gmail.com> <4915F484-A2C4-44B0-BAF8-B3CF09D9450F@tzi.org> <CAHw9_iL6wn83-W9t2H1P0o9k3mvir=WdKU164=C24Y53UsiFiw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/9FQgVdXYcfUi3RaXDNw5S0GlHfs>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] what metric replaces page-count?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=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