Subject: RE: Non-text attachments posted to list

From: "Mani, Mahalingam \(Mani\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:09:20 -0700

Brian,

Thanks - my stance agrees with what you stated below on all counts.

Interestingly I received a lot of private flame-throwing for
constraining file-sizes and formats (part of the reason being a
sizeable# of this WG also is used to IEEE802.11 conventions of allowing
word, ppt; this WG is creating a WLAN IP-based backend protocol).

(Well - the size is now relaxed to 150K. We have tried to discourage but
do not enforce 'pdf/txt-only' rules yet - and let the WG decide; note
that sifting through mail-archives on any types of file-format
attachment is painful - if not downright useless - the way the
list-archives are maintained).

-mani
======
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:44 AM
To: Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Non-text attachments posted to list

Mani,

Traditionally this was felt to be rude, and I think we must consider
that
not all our participants have broadband connections. It's rare for me
now,
but I remember the extreme frustration of receiving large attachments
when connected by modem in a hotel room. If we have active participants
in locations with poor connectivity, this may be a permanent problem for
them.

So I prefer the model where attachments are small and larger files
are posted to a web site. In particular, while preparing for an IETF
meeting, you now have the option of uploading draft meeting materials
to the IETF site.

I think there's a pretty strong argument against proprietary formats.
You can't assume that all participants have access to specific paid
software. That's why most people prefer to send PDF if for some
reason ASCII won't do. [See [email-masked] threads on RFC formats to
understand the level of emotion about this.]

But I don't believe this is an area where we should have an IETF rule.
It depends on what the participants in a given WG prefer, IMHO.

     Brian

Mani, Mahalingam (Mani) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> What is the IETF position of posting (large or small) attachments to
the
> WG list?
> 
> And of the attachments being either powerpoint or word documents? Is
> there a guideline on how big or small the file-sizes
> 
> should be?
> 
>  
> 
> We in CAPWAP had been suggesting such postings be text/pdf attachments
> only - though some continue to show affinity towards above other
> formats. Should we allow such "de-facto" common formats and large
> file-sizes?
> 
>  
> 
> Are the reasons for keeping email sizes (there's currently a limit of
> 40k beyond which it requires the
> 
> approval of the list-admin/chair) obsolete today (besides concerns
about
> size-based spam-flood)?
> 
>  
> 
> What is the position chairs (should) generally take on powerpoint /
word
> attachments to list?
> Regards,
> -mani
> ======