Re: [Tools-implementation] Draft of message noting that we will allow xml2rfc to produce text formatted as an RFC but paginated with page numbers.

Glen <glen@amsl.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 19:37 UTC

To: tools-implementation@ietf.org, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
References: <b75081de-b2ee-ecdd-f4b9-bfed2e7cfaf7@nostrum.com>
From: Glen <glen@amsl.com>
Organization: AMS
Message-ID: <2b753945-8ee6-c26c-4e56-fd08a9f7c0d1@amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 11:37:09 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b75081de-b2ee-ecdd-f4b9-bfed2e7cfaf7@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-implementation/u1bEcb25XfLZA_PeHTNl-9cv-N8>
Subject: Re: [Tools-implementation] Draft of message noting that we will allow xml2rfc to produce text formatted as an RFC but paginated with page numbers.
Precedence: list

No issues that I can see, I think it is okay, although I'm not the most 
qualified to judge this topic area. ;-)

Glen

On 12/9/2020 09:11, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Tools-implementation team (plus Jay): -
> 
> I plan to send the below note to tools-discuss and forward a pointer to 
> it on the ietf list and rfc-interest on Friday unless I hear a request 
> for something significantly different from you before then.
> 
> Please comment. If you think this is ok as is, please say so.
> 
> RjS
> 
> ----------
> 
> Subject: Allowing xml2rfc to generate text documents with page numbers
> 
> The RFCs that define the format specifications for RFCs are clear that 
> the published rendered text format for RFCs will not have page numbers.
> 
> However, we have received many requests to allow the rendering tool to 
> add those numbers when people are rendering documents locally for their 
> own purposes. Adding and maintaining support for that is trivial, and we 
> plan to make that available via a command-line argument in an upcoming 
> release of xml2rfc.
> 
> This isn't a change to how RFCs will be published - published RFCs will 
> continue to follow the format requirements from RFC 7994 and the 
> discussions around the revision of the documents defining the RFC 
> formats. Those wishing to change how RFCs are published should 
> contribute to future efforts revising those specifications.
> 
> In general, the formatters will be able to produce a superset of what is 
> required for RFC publication, and we anticipate that new capabilities 
> will be added when there is appropriate demand.
> 
> We acknowledge the concerns around the potential for confusion raised 
> during the discussion of the request for this capability. However, we 
> note that it is possible to generate a document with the current tools 
> that looks like a published RFC with completely different content. 
> Addressing this potential for confusion is not an issue to solve with 
> the formatting tools.
> 
> Robert Sparks, Tools Team Chair
> 
> 
>

[Tools-implementation] Draft of message noting th… Robert Sparks
Re: [Tools-implementation] Draft of message notin… Alexey Melnikov
Re: [Tools-implementation] Draft of message notin… Glen
Re: [Tools-implementation] Draft of message notin… Jay Daley