Hi Toerless -
Just to be clear about my other thread on the subject - having xml2rfc
produce things that look like RFCs that have page numbers in them for
someone's local use is one thing. Publishing such things is entirely
different. Confusion about different versions of published things is a
real consideration. To get to that point, I think you really are talking
about changing a community consensus set of documents - the output of
such a poll will be input into some drafts, not just "stand up this
separate service".
RjS
On 10/26/20 1:01 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
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
