Since about RFC8650, newer RFC will not have any renderings with page numbers on {datatracker,tools}.ietf.org. See explanation from John Levine below. Not having followed the details of the RFC/XMLv3 standardization process, i was surprised by this because i think there is no reason to have additional renderings, maybe even only on tools.ietf.org that do include page numbers (and technically it does not seem to be a problem either). If you care to express your position, i have created a poll for this, please chime in there: https://www.poll-maker.com/results3188562x294441dA-98 Cheers toerless On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:35:43PM -0400, 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