IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 29 October 2020 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 1AD5E3A0B08 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 pBm8BF2A8-rv for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39D173A0AF9 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A591B389E3; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id E6su-42prvst; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:00:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B6F389E1; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:00:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BA84E7; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:53:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
CC: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
In-Reply-To: <15d44f0c-c616-7ceb-536d-3360ca60655f@gmail.com>
References: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8jdSeTDWy_0fCV25ykxKFMV1ZBtUMMNesoOuaXCzFVfpOA@mail.gmail.com> <D2D0455D-8D6C-4A19-ACAE-4DD972D83DC1@bluepopcorn.net> <20201028164053.GB12700@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <263C265C19B24BA97AF48934@PSB> <CAHw9_iJVdE9hdpy9o6mSRFbHR4CZ8SUdU1NURGP4gS6YTWPXmg@mail.gmail.com> <15d44f0c-c616-7ceb-536d-3360ca60655f@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:53:56 -0400
Message-ID: <5762.1603972436@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/qZlbpI78CoNtD7T9CBSvrMthKVc>
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: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:54:02 -0000

    > On 29-Oct-20 09:01, Warren Kumari wrote:
    >> I'll happily admit that I didn't follow the new format discussions
    >> closely, and that I do read a lot of things (including books) in
    >> formats which don't have clear "pages", but the thing that is worrying
    >> me is the underlying "and you should feel bad" tone in much of this
    >> discussion.

I agree: there is a bunch of "you should feel bad" going on.
On the other hand, we often have people begging for review and getting none,
and they are told that should feel bad because their document was not loved
enough :-)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Agreed. Yes, there was active discussion of this issue 6 years ago,
    > but in a vacuum (no running code). Now we have running code, revisiting
    > the issue in the light of experience is the right thing to do. Nothing
    > to feel bad about. I hope none of my messages made anyone feel bad.

maybe we should *ALL* feel bad that we found/made some (perhaps artificial)
consensus before we had running code :-)

    > However, we don't currently have the organizational framework needed
    > for this discussion. There is active discussion of the organizational
    > issue right now, on rfced-future@iab.org. Please join.

last time I looked, it seemed to be debating angels on the pinhead :-(
[ps: rfced is a case where I can't spend the time to keep up on the ML,
but unless there is a conflict, I will "tourist" the (virtual) meeting]

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email