As Julian Reschke observed on the rfc-interest list, since the
new RFC format was implemented:
> page numbers should not be used to refer to parts of the
> RFC, because page breaks vary with output formats
So I can only see confusion if people use page numbers for
any purpose whatever. So it doesn't matter if people want
page numbers; they're now useless. So I won't be answering
a poll, and I don't think the results are interesting.
Regards
Brian
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 27-Oct-20 07:01, 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
>
> .
>
