[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

tom petch daedulus at btconnect.com
Sun Aug 22 12:39:33 PDT 2021

On 21/08/2021 22:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 22-Aug-21 05:55, Robert Sparks wrote:
> <snip>
> It's easy enough to cite details by section number or by URL
> (even figures, e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8989#venn1).
> So losing page numbers, a feature of .txt that I've often seen
> mentioned, seems unimportant. This applies to drafts as much
> as to RFCs.

May be but when the section spans what would be 50 pages were there to 
be pages, then I find it somewhat difficult, especially when the same 
text e.g. 'leaf name', appears in multiple places.  I refer, of course, 
to YANG modules.  Perhaps YANG version 2.1 will introduce the concept of 

Tom Petch

> The only use I have made of .txt on recent drafts is to run rfcdiff.
> IMHO, rfcdiff is an essential tool for document development.
> I can't see anything else that amounts to a need.
>      Brian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> .

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list