[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"

Ted Lemon mellon at fugue.com
Tue Feb 19 06:28:01 PST 2013

On Feb 18, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> Also, we have a clear difference of opinion regarding stable page
> numbering.  Some insist on it for at least some output formats, and
> some do not want stable page numbering to be a requirement if that
> conflicts with other requirements.

If there is stable page numbering for the ASCII text output format, this enables people to say "if you look at the ASCII text version on page 4, halfway down, you'll see blah."   This is probably worth preserving, since it's clear that some people use it this way (e.g., Martin Rex' comment earlier).

But let's not get carried away and make that canonical.   It's just a workflow some people prefer, and more power to them.   We should allow them to continue using that workflow, but not center the whole RFC publication process on that workflow.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list