Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Ronald Tse <tse@ribose.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 00:32 UTC
Return-Path: <tse@ribose.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CE13A1118; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:22 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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=ribose.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 YJwBDtgEW2UN; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1300084.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.130.84]) (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 4655A3A1117; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=CiIaU70GqGZ55Jhzkf/rt04IvfVfRVfbq6SeOujl4SIZeeMdMvttvVCsokYuKjK5ldD8dV31z2UNpDUzIdOjrkWC0b1z65jlpG9JxRJ7B6i0/qKdbGPD1BZ+ge+ARwZ8bfpcKh30Dfbqtm3oAFaUFrjNt03fQzUwuX4eJObJoowbOsQPwdHWzcgYL0FFVl8zaULBSHDA4H71hwNHVl7na1mTfBdQwNqvdZfUnuiUr4bO5CF2WibMVw/xtdiUHZlLsaU6ME4Ed1Wdt/2mbbmlClr/U7Rxz8h5HMqb4+eUB4LL4M+zXA9ISyXgaM9N5ObxKRofKXwTkKPDBcjWDroZaw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Me1/nGkcbmznsOymgSky5mTT9GI6mVn4qw+1eOmOWVU=; b=NAWbVftM+LWR+UoRu9QIElJsFaPWThEEFvuHzrWtCgKGs35nY0C6cAMYa9JZmQrwH+RemSX6xMymLqPTzCne2Iqa7+/5i/QTTNjapEH3FQ6Ct9LgELvcItW6RwI2E1l6h72j2OSbrO8szrBKyTL/6t/vuDnOEX+LA7wm8DQ4r1XQRCqhyCbqRi/RBG/f/G0cUPQ1nRTIUeAcqxVMSCCIphRckCbzUaKZkYg5M7ciFgTy2cJH6n8P/SPxwnM6nkgnZzj1vnKYqbvt67WteQVhk6MkJjq7PZqtTmnm0zRb1Y7qAFvHx/62KixHgj5u4WNGvPDDLnBdgLflXAZmw+gr3g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ribose.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ribose.com; dkim=pass header.d=ribose.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ribose.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Me1/nGkcbmznsOymgSky5mTT9GI6mVn4qw+1eOmOWVU=; b=FLJqjKVj79KB/TJ4k05YsHzMoXAuIZ4/qdQlNzc6xBYQW9EEA2NxpLUju1EqgTBHpPCP0CP4XPtNUrOnAb0KdGvp9Zix3Irob7RMHCOQ6beVvxr2EQMI+HWwb8+qGNXzzrFAqpwNY2x+fgDa2WnUBy/CJVqZilBHgyURFrZEqGM=
Received: from HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:203:98::14) by HK0PR01MB1908.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:203:21::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3477.25; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:32:11 +0000
Received: from HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::b8:4b19:ebf4:7724]) by HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::b8:4b19:ebf4:7724%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3477.029; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:32:10 +0000
From: Ronald Tse <tse@ribose.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "wgchairs@ietf.org" <wgchairs@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "rsoc@iab.org" <rsoc@iab.org>
CC: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Thread-Topic: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Thread-Index: AQHWq8nHuGg0JtFOcUGgjys0Ih1qXamqaPaxgAAmtQCAAAn2gA==
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:32:10 +0000
Message-ID: <75918E93-96A2-4C9A-9D60-570E7A0E1B22@ribose.com>
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.c om> <35EFE952-7786-4E24-B228-9BEE51D3C876@tzi.org> <20201026150241.GK48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20201026162814.GP39170@kduck.mit.edu> <20201026164036.GO48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1a56dc3b-56ef-3ffb-a12b-44d5e0d0f835@levkowetz.com> <20201026171931.GP48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b733240-fc78-5a71-8920-ff84fbf64287@iecc.com> <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <03976f9f-7f49-7bf7-ce29-ee989232a44d@gmail.com> <7FA8EF59-5CDE-42B9-A487-520531EEA1F0@juniper.net> <65374aef-e018-7bc8-ce50-d5c0a3982bf7@gmail.com> <DE3C9D6AE8EF94D87936DAE7@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <DE3C9D6AE8EF94D87936DAE7@PSB>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
authentication-results: jck.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;jck.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ribose.com;
x-originating-ip: [58.153.245.161]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b5d6bccc-28c8-4e6a-0678-08d87a0fbe61
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HK0PR01MB1908:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HK0PR01MB19082484B749783F51B6035ED7160@HK0PR01MB1908.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6430;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: DjV8Zd5iLnx5osB4wbDn058h1UJ0qTnWW1Wg87gB274RSV1UW8f/G7Ja1eygiDEY3mhqcoAI4hr3fxr/8eXLVxJHZPDXwkbYg89Qg0drGK1xxp24LWzOOAbv1IrA24pYRDwzcdQm3ZEFA5ooohrAkLJhcWCPYskqbpH3LOjU0C3oJOX5T95ImMLB6OCxbSHciYkBWm8oH2WCou05Cj+1EjT4eFJRTFvQlPGZznNc3HQby9OJCHx7q1wi4IAnytVvDPDtWteY3j7LV1I+bMWlbtQMCxW6CbIQIGeTUWMmOq+jL9e52YVOE2etSnfPWetVeos/l9bSxnVQhZFXex89OIFgVd6lFhW1k82+1ppQ+lCNZ/qHyIVOdqz6vnjG/alZKp8UUo2hDde3TLPvTG67dg==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(39830400003)(396003)(136003)(376002)(366004)(166002)(66556008)(91956017)(83380400001)(8936002)(66946007)(64756008)(6506007)(66476007)(71200400001)(66446008)(76116006)(2616005)(36756003)(53546011)(33656002)(478600001)(4326008)(5660300002)(6512007)(8676002)(966005)(86362001)(2906002)(110136005)(186003)(26005)(6486002)(316002)(66574015)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_75918E9396A24C9A9D60570E7A0E1B22ribosecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ribose.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b5d6bccc-28c8-4e6a-0678-08d87a0fbe61
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Oct 2020 00:32:10.7434 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: d98a04ff-ef98-489b-b33c-13c23a2e091a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: I3S/IJIE091Z/QTkm0YX8x0yVimLgrmpX4Gvu+Wyzf8J1AHfGkfvImS20NZci3aK
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HK0PR01MB1908
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/76cywM9biC9B3VPveJYJfqJNPEo>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:32:23 -0000
My two cents: why don’t we just run a poll to see what the “consensus” is? To me, standardizing page numbers is the wrong direction — one of the features of XML RFC is to allow rendering content into different formats. Having page numbers for the ASCII version is fine (it’s only being done by xml2rfc anyway), but requiring these numbers inside the XML is putting the cart before the horse. Ron _____________________________________ Ronald Tse Ribose Inc. On Oct 27, 2020, at 7:56 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com<mailto:john-ietf@jck.com>> wrote: --On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 10:37 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote: The argument that page numbers are harmful for *any* *purpose* *whatever* is not reasonable. To offer one glaringly obvious counterexample, people (I, for one) sometimes print RFCs for the purpose of reading them. Sometimes we want to make use of some kind of facility for indexing from a list of headings to facilitate direct access to the right section of the pile of printout. A table of contents, in short. This is literally what tables of contents were invented for. They remain useful for this purpose… unless some bright spark chooses to remove the page numbers from them, because they forgot what tables of contents are FOR. Well yes... but iirc the input to the new format discussion was that most people read RFCs and drafts on-screen and mostly with the htmlized versions. So the needs of the occasional eccentrics who print them for off-line reading were set aside. (I can say that because I am such an eccentric.) But, first of all, if the only need is to print (eccentric or not) for off-line reading were the only issue, then that is an argument in favor of PDF and perhaps abolishing the text form, not crippling it, unless one happens to like the fixed-pitch font (definitely eccentric). The people whose needs were set aside were those of us who routinely use text editors (of the emacs or vi species and their clones), and personal RFC-specific macros in those editors, to work with RFCs, many of whom have been working that way for a long time (a few since before there was an IETF). As to "set aside", there were at least some IETF participants with those needs (or, if you prefer, habits), along with those who argued for keeping the xml2rfc v3 specification rather closer to generic markup (reducing rather than increasing the amount of format markup) and inclusion of markup that would make it straightforward to specify references to book chapters and journal articles in relatively standard form. It was made clear to at least a subset of that group that they were (to paraphrase somewhat) a bunch of old farts who, regardless of their prior experience, just did not understand the modern Internet and publishing and therefore would not be listened to no matter what they had to say. That message was rather clear and, since the process was not an IETF one, appeals and the like felt rather hopeless. So, some people just moved on to other things and others concluded that the IETF was on enough of a downhill slide that issues like publication formats made little difference. The good news is that there apparently weren't very many of us. (Also, I think the use of the ToC for quickly estimating a document's throw weight is a valid one. I previously suggested associating a BogoPages metric with each non paginated RFC for this purpose.) Well, the byte count serves fairly well for that too. Sure. So does a line count given a format. But, while I'm reconciled to do it, time I spend re-understanding and then rebuilding macros that are a couple of decades old is time that isn't spent on IETF substantive work. The question is whether whatever benefits are gained by eliminating pagination from RFCs -- presumably gains to those who continue to use the text form rather than HTML or PDF because the latter two groups are irrelevant -- are sufficient to justify that. john Regards Brian _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questions / prefe… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questions / p… David Noveck
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… David Noveck
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Henrik Levkowetz
- John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions… John R. Levine
- Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions… Robert Sparks
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Carsten Bormann
- Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (w… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) … Robert Sparks
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Warren Kumari
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John Scudder
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Carsten Bormann
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Wes Hardaker
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Henk Birkholz
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Henk Birkholz
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFC… Wes Hardaker
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? David Noveck
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questions / p… Fred Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Keith Drage
- Re: [irsg] [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questi… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … HANSEN, TONY L
- RE: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew Campling
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Paul Kyzivat