----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future
Development"
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:48:53AM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
Limiting the waste of network bandwidth seems like a desirable goal,
no matter how I look at it, from the "waiting for download"
perspective
as well as the environmental impact.
All that requires is the availability of a small file, not an overall
limitation on the size of files. No?
There is a parallel thread on the IETF list about the difficulty of
staffing the IETF which has contained references to how the IETF is
different, how we do not want to be like the ITU-T.
What prompted my comment is a wish for the technology of the IETF to
evolve, not to make a quantum leap to be like the technology of other
SDOs. I assume that whatever we do with RFC, which is the subject of
the Call for Comment, will inevitably cascade into all I-Ds and even to
some extent into mailing lists.
The IETF has been conservative in its use of technology and I think that
that is part of its success. If the entry point for participating in
the IETF were a 20MBit/s link to the desktop with the latest versions of
MS Office, Acrobat reader, Photoshop etc then we would be an
insignificant pimple on the back of other SDOs.
I quoted the example of a document from another SDO which was 16 times
larger than it would have been using IETF technology. I have seen
individual documents that are even more expanded. Look at where the
documents have been - MS Word is good at telling me that - and it is
from within large organisations, to whom the latest technology is likely
no barrier.
The other example I have quoted before is a WG mailing list discussion
where the e-mails in the thread went over one Mbyte in size each and
yes, there were commenting from perspective of another SDO. Whether or
not the SDO's technology was being used I cannot tell but I am sure that
the e-mails reflected the common practice of that SDO. The actual
text added in each successive post was a few hundred bytes, following
the conventions of the IETF would have made the e-mails a few thousand
bytes, but those with a background in another SDO has no concerns about
turning them into a Megabyte or more. That is inconsiderate and
thoughtless.
That is why I believe that there must be a limit, to avoid a quantum
leap in the costs that will reduce or eliminate the ready availability
of the IETF to potential participants.
Tom Petch
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com