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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 12 April 2021 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 89F073A2550 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 3EguMN4Oqqgf for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cyan.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (cyan.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.47]) (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 B75913A2557 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF6B361964; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:25:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a74.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-17-216.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.17.216]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3648536199A; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:25:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a74.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.17.216 (trex/6.1.1); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:25:31 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Reaction-Callous: 47d9702c1e120634_1618187131333_2840447314
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618187131333:4011211777
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618187131333
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a74.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a74.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9EB84C61; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=4skOPvdViVL/EH QPcHPXu0vIXmI=; b=p5PYSKtLLvxjFEqKgQmzSV82IfgQvwxFYWDHJIs1l/YbgS lnCy2kChrv+1iOC5/PGxRezkcBEFQDqUm4tsx5MmMcLJGGGEERf+f8Mh0WfEJqZj da+L/YvhjrRxFjTyz0xu6XeWSp0Fdc+FJkOQxw7Brl5RqtQ0WcZdBXkd5pSuY=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a74.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3676B8306A; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:25:19 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a74
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210412002518.GN9612@localhost>
References: <20557.1618171860@localhost> <F35C8691-ADA2-4DEC-B24A-0DFB5B76567F@tzi.org> <66fd7812-4d2c-bf9d-d4bf-16c501754d7e@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <66fd7812-4d2c-bf9d-d4bf-16c501754d7e@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/suKj_STT1j-_diHm6SEEiX8OyEk>
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 00:25:38 -0000

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 08:50:05AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 12-Apr-21 08:12, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > On 2021-04-11, at 22:11, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Signed PGP part
> >>
> >> If RFCs won't be paginated, how will I know approximately how long a document is?
> > 
> > Use the page count of the PDF then.
> > (This is less stable over time, as the rendering may change, but probably as useful as the existing page count.)
> 
> Yes, my guess is that PDF will become the go-to version for people
> (such as lawyers and judges) who want page references for new-format
> RFCs.

So.. pagination forever then?