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

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Tue Jun 24 05:38:13 PDT 2014

Section 3.3 of that RFC does say this.

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.


> 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