1) that RFC reader is alright, but it still isn't good on a phone. If you view the PDF version of any RFC on ietf.org, it has a hyperlinked table of contents, so you don't need a javascript version of it like what rfcreader.com provides, and you can store that PDF offline. You can also hit the TXT version of any RFC and it's passable in Safari's Reader View, I'd say better than rfcreader.com (I also tried Reader View on rfcreader.com and it has other issues, so it's like trading one set of problems for another, but I see no clear winner, so for me the tie breaker goes to ietf.org);
2) the OP made the point that text is preferable to video–I happen to agree–and I was responding to the hyperbolic (and again, subjective) pushback regarding "ugly" text, explaining a way that it is still functionally superior to videos (which can have wildly diverse quality issues of their own);
1) that RFC reader is alright, but it still isn't good on a phone. If you view the PDF version of any RFC on ietf.org, it has a hyperlinked table of contents, so you don't need a javascript version of it like what rfcreader.com provides, and you can store that PDF offline. You can also hit the TXT version of any RFC and it's passable in Safari's Reader View, I'd say better than rfcreader.com (I also tried Reader View on rfcreader.com and it has other issues, so it's like trading one set of problems for another, but I see no clear winner, so for me the tie breaker goes to ietf.org);
2) the OP made the point that text is preferable to video–I happen to agree–and I was responding to the hyperbolic (and again, subjective) pushback regarding "ugly" text, explaining a way that it is still functionally superior to videos (which can have wildly diverse quality issues of their own);
3) I didn't link the RFC, that was someone else.