Joel, FWIW, I think that measuring consensus on rfc-interest and assuming that represented consensus of RFC users, and others dependent on them, or even that of the IETF, may be what got us into this mess. john\ --On Saturday, November 30, 2019 18:46 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It seems that it ought to take a consensus call (here, > rfc-interest, somewhere else?) to change the default output > prouced by the IETF tools. The question of pagination of > output was more contentious than I would have expected in > previous rounds. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 11/30/2019 5:58 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >> On 11/30/19 5:22 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> >>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 21:26, Henrik >>> Levkowetz<henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> If being able to generate paginated text output for >>>> published v3 RFC XML files is desirable, I'm happy to add a >>>> switch to do that. >>> Please do. >> >> Yes, please do. Though IMO this should be the default. >> (paginated, not necessarily including page numbers). >> >> Keith >> >> >
