[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

Thomas Clausen ietf at thomasclausen.org
Tue Jun 24 05:41:34 PDT 2014

On Jun 24, 2014, at 14:38, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:

> Section 3.3 of that RFC does say this.

I just got to about there, too. That, quite frankly, suxx.

But, OK, to be productive, I propose a compromise that will satisfy both those adept at section numbers, and those adept at page numbers:

	“an automatic, monotonically increasing section number, starting with the digit 1,
	 MUST inserted every 58 lines of text (including figures, whitespaces, etc) of the

Or, is it an "RFC6949 considered harmful” RFC?


> -- 
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Clausen [mailto:ietf at thomasclausen.org] 
> Sent: 24 June 2014 13:15
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Paul Kyzivat; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 14:02, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-06-24 13:41, Thomas Clausen wrote:
>>> That does, if you will excuse my violent disagreement, appear like an 
>>> enormous step backwards in usability: both when writing a 
>>> specification, when writing an implementation from a specification 
>>> (especially if actually commenting code), or when reviewing a 
>>> specification for somebody else, the ability to reference "Page XX 
>>> line Y" is rather convenient, almost necessary - especially, when 
>>> collaborating with folks using different output media (of which paper 
>>> remains an important one, for various reasons..)
>>> I haven't printed an RFC or an I-D in a decade - and yet, find both page numbers and line numbers to be paramount.
>>> With my various set of co-authors, while I do *try* to point to "enumerated sections", we almost always end up "counting lines on a page" at some point in time. I note that other SDOs actually have printed line-numbers in the margin of (at least, their working/intermediate) documents.
>> My experience is the opposite; I always end up linking to section numbers or paragraphs.
> Excellent. That goes to show, then, that I was right to not propose "let's remove section numbers" as a solution. 
> I had a hunch that they were useful for someone, and I didn't want to step on those "someones", even though I personally use page numbers much, much more.
>>> While I have deep respect for the "other goals" that you cite, and I agree that we should support different output devices, I respectfully submit that that has nothing to do with the argument being made.
>>> I also respectfully submit that those "other goals" perhaps are given too high a priority here, and I wonder who set those priorities?
>> You may want to read <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6949> which was published over a year ago, and which represents the outcome of a very long discussion.
> Thanks, I shall. I appreciate that pointer. I fell onto this list by accident, and so I may not have seen all that has happened, and am not sure that I saw that very long discussion. 
> Not having read that document yet, if RFC6949 states "we MUST remove page numbers from RFCs" then I'd submit that somebody needs to - and, rather urgently - publish an "RFC6949 considered harmful" RFC.
> Thomas
>> Best regards, Julian
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list