+1 One of the big things I appreciate about IETF specs is the simplicity and ease of consumption from the txt versions. On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, Donald Eastlake wrote: | | | I endorse Warren's comments. I use the text versions heavily and I believe that one of the formats available should preserve the traditional RFC format. | -- All formats should have a Tables of Content. (Well, I guess I would agree that if an RFC had less than two sections, it wouldn't need a ToC, but I don't see how that is possible with the current requirements.) | | -- If a format is paginated, it should have page numbers. (A warning could be added something like "Warning: The page numbers in this document depend on its presentation format and will differ in other renditions.") | | -- If a format has a ToC and pages numbers, those page numbers should appear in the ToC and just before the ToC would be a good place for the warning suggested above. | | Thanks, | Donald | =============================== | Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) | 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA | d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx | | | On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 4:02 PM Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: | On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:20 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: | > | [ Massive SNIP ] | | > | > (a) They are traditional in the RFC Series and | > preserving that rendering in a format consistent with a | > significant fraction of the first 7000 or so of RFCs | > would seem to have some advantages. Of course, no one | > is forced to use them, any more than anyone has been | > forced to use the standard text form since HTML and PDF | > forms became generally available years ago. | > | > (b) Of the fraction of the community that still prefers | > to use the plain text form (at least sometimes) and for | > one purpose or another, some fraction of them prefer to | > have the headers and footers and many of those prefer, | > or are not disturbed by, the page numbers. Because many | > of the arguments against page numbers seem to be coming | > from people who do not find the plain text form useful, | > probably we should pay attention to that preference ... | > or start making the case for getting rid of the plain | > text form entirely, perhaps because those who prefer it | > (for any purpose) need to be persuaded to join the | > modern era and get with the programs. | > | | I realize you aren't actually pushing this point, but this seemed like | the clearest expression of one of my concerns with this entire thread, | and so I'm choosing to hook onto it... | | Full disclosure: | I'm one of the people who both believes that there is value in the | "traditional" aspect of the series, and the fact that RFC17 looks the | same as RFC42, which looks the same as RFC4217, which looks the same | as RFC8217 is a good thing. | I also like and use the text formats - I sometimes print out RFCS, I | have tooling which greps through documents for things, I generate | statistics, etc. It's a personal preference. | | I've gotten 2 distinctly negative impressions from this thread: | 1: "You need to join the modern era and get with the program" sums it | up well. HTML / flowed output is the new world, liking the text format | is bad and you should feel bad[0]. | | 2: There were extensive discussions around the new format, and the | lack of page numbers was mentioned. You were not paying attention when | this happened. Not only do you lose any right to discuss this, but you | were lazy and should feel bad. | | 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. | | Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive (or that I just miss seeing IETFers | in person), but it feels to me like the "and you should feel bad" | subtext seems to be cropping up more and more. We used to generally | assume that someone who had a bad or silly idea just had a bad or | silly *idea* - but it now we often seem to be implying that the person | is bad or silly. | | Other than being able to meet in person again, I'm not sure how we get | back to where our base assumptions are that other IETFers are friends, | and are also trying to do the right thing... | | W | [0]: Meme reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2KMkQLZmI | | | > Probably I'm missing something important but, if the above | > analysis is even nearly correct, I don't understand why we are | > still having this conversation. | > | > john | > | | | -- | I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad | idea in the first place. | This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing | regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair | of pants. | ---maf | | |
