Subject: [Gen-art] Octets vs Bytes?

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:05:15 +0100

Hi.

Has either the RFC Editor, the IESG or any other responsible body in the 
IETF ever taken a view on whether we ought to be using 'octets' in 
preference to 'bytes'?

If so did anybody ever tell the authors?  I can't find anything in the 
guidelines.

Regards,
Elwyn

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:16:03 +0200

> IETF ever taken a view on whether we ought to be using 'octets' in

I don't think so - I've heard the subject mentioned, but generally met with 
the reaction of "oh no - not another crappy little rule".

The days of the 9-bit byte are long gone...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:36:59 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I don't think so - I've heard the subject mentioned, but generally met 
> with the reaction of "oh no - not another crappy little rule".
> 

What about CDC bytes? They had 6 bits.

But seriously, we're not ISO so I accept byte or octet myself.

    Brian

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:34:31 -0700

>If so did anybody ever tell the authors?  I can't find anything in the 

Elwyn,

VERY interesting question.  Jon Postel definitely had a preference for the 
(presumably more precise) "octet". See RFCs 791, ... But in the ARPAnet 
days, when Jon began to be the RFC Editor, there were many machines with 
different byte and word sizes, so being precise made some sense.  Today, 
hardly anyone even remembers bytes that did not contain 8 bits -- 7, 9, 12, 
whatever. So, although we have pondered this issue now and then, since Jon 
passed away the RFC Editor has not made any effort to give guidance on this 
issue.  But your input would be most welcome.

Bob Braden for the RFC Editor

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:43:47 +0100

Bob Braden wrote:

>> Has either the RFC Editor, the IESG or any other responsible body in 
>> the IETF ever taken a view on whether we ought to be using 'octets' 
>> in preference to 'bytes'?
>>
>> If so did anybody ever tell the authors?  I can't find anything in 
>> the guidelines.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Elwyn
>
>
> Elwyn,
>
> VERY interesting question.  Jon Postel definitely had a preference for 
> the (presumably more precise) "octet". See RFCs 791, ... But in the 
> ARPAnet days, when Jon began to be the RFC Editor, there were many 
> machines with different byte and word sizes, so being precise made 
> some sense.  Today, hardly anyone even remembers bytes that did not 
> contain 8 bits -- 7, 9, 12, whatever. So, although we have pondered 
> this issue now and then, since Jon passed away the RFC Editor has not 
> made any effort to give guidance on this issue.  But your input would 
> be most welcome.
>

Bob,

Other responses (Brian and Harald) seem to indicate that some at least 
feel that imposing octets would be pedantic and unwanted bureaucracy.  
Personally I feel that consistent use of octets would be a good idea and 
makes it quite clear that we are dealing with eight bit units.  I find 
when reading lots of drafts that having both kicking around 
(occasionally in the same draft) is sloppy. Using octets is also 
consistent with what other standards bodies do - again some may not find 
this a recommendation, but I think that avoiding octets for this reason 
is being dleiberately perverse.  I am not sure how non-native speakers 
of English feel about it.

Anyway, I am not going to make a big song and dance about it - we have 
many more vital things to get right at the moment!

Elwyn

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:49:50 -0700

>when reading lots of drafts that having both kicking around (occasionally 
>in the same draft) is sloppy. Using octets is also consistent with what 
>other standards bodies do - again some may not find this a recommendation, 
>but I think that avoiding octets for this reason is being dleiberately 
>perverse.  I am not sure how non-native speakers of English feel about it.
>

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:17:21 -0400

I like "octet" because (1) it feels consistent with the usage in the
Postel days that I grew up on, and (2) it's very precise and I like
extreme precision.

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:33:44 +0100

By chance I saw that at least one AD has current strong views on this 
subject!

A comment on a draft up for IESG approval this week 
(draft-gray-rfc1888bis-02):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=39974

Elwyn

Bob Braden wrote:

> Sorry, I am the victim of very flakey wireless connectivity at a 
> meeting hotel!  Yes.
>
> At 09:41 PM 9/27/2005 +0100, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>
>> Did you intend to write something?
>>
>> E
>>
>> Bob Braden wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>> Other responses (Brian and Harald) seem to indicate that some at 
>>>> least feel that imposing octets would be pedantic and unwanted 
>>>> bureaucracy.
>>>> Personally I feel that consistent use of octets would be a good 
>>>> idea and makes it quite clear that we are dealing with eight bit 
>>>> units.  I find when reading lots of drafts that having both kicking 
>>>> around (occasionally in the same draft) is sloppy. Using octets is 
>>>> also consistent with what other standards bodies do - again some 
>>>> may not find this a recommendation, but I think that avoiding 
>>>> octets for this reason is being dleiberately perverse.  I am not 
>>>> sure how non-native speakers of English feel about it.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I am not going to make a big song and dance about it - we 
>>>> have many more vital things to get right at the moment!
>>>
>
> I generally agree with you.  However, the RFC Editor could at least 
> check for consistent usage within a single document.
>
> Bob Braden
>
>
>
>
>>>> Elwyn
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>