That (the suggestions that RFC-interest is the wrong place to judge such
things) may be, which is why I listed alternatives. But just saying
that two people liked the idea, and no one screamed, in one day, is
clearly NOT enough to change the default.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/30/2019 9:32 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
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
