Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

John - you've answered why RFCs are not published with page numbers and 
where/when the community discussion that took place for that decision.

You haven't answered whether/how the RSOC engaged the community on the 
question of whether the tools should let someone produce an RFC locally 
that has page numbers in it for themselves if they want to. The 
reasoning for not letting the tools produce such a thing is certainly 
not explicitly captured in the series of RFCs you point to.

Julian has alluded to the principle behind the pressure already, but I'm 
still at a small loss for why RSOC, or the RSE, should care about what 
people make for themselves?

RjS

On 10/26/20 12:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Could you please explain why RSOC does not want to permit the ability
>> to have paginated RFC output options ? Also, where and when was this
>> discussed with the community ?
>
> It was discussed in the multi-year process leading to the IAB
> publishing RFCs 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, and
> 7998 in 2016. I'm sure you know how to find the discussions in the
> archives.  Henrik knows all of this and I cannot imagine why he did 
> not tell you the same thing.
>
> I am aware there is one recent RFC author who did not participate in
> the process at all and has been complaining that the text version of
> his RFC doesn't have page numbers. I've explained this to him more
> than once, and see no reason to waste more time on it.
>
> R's,
> John
>