[Tools-discuss] Serving a partial documents (was Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts)

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 26 February 2021 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54213A1404 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:03:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.279
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GX9-TbSBYE9d for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 334C83A13FF for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unformal.localdomain ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 11QI2rt8068121 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:02:53 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1614362574; bh=h/jb2TqB7yji277X20oEg/kSVdGkA8KlCLzzBA28Nfw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=uLZF0MPj5TKFXT4BRNNhXB0oUkYNuFXp8oQWgGb5LqjWp8jZ7q/2kgkqFe2T1F65u cEW/v/C3927k3XEJ9BHprFPKj7CljLKrKOvPw3T6Yx7UbCJQCF0VcRFEhU4dSvBDwM CXs+3yzbVII9M8EyUHF76hB2L92uwf79Tb6d33zs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [] claimed to be unformal.localdomain
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <ca04c9b0-a466-2bdb-7a4b-192ec12fc3fd@gmx.de> <780EF9C1-11FA-4ED2-B206-1FD82A1204CE@tzi.org> <3fee246b-7a01-7a4f-cb7a-a548f4040bd1@nostrum.com> <60392FB9.9060801@btconnect.com> <CD75A86D-FE9E-4F63-BAF9-7EEE0C2D6F84@akamai.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <1d0d18c2-f63d-c867-99ed-68c4ab6aa425@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:02:47 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CD75A86D-FE9E-4F63-BAF9-7EEE0C2D6F84@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/5LPQENciRXFn_8R53e2f-mIxjyk>
Subject: [Tools-discuss] Serving a partial documents (was Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts)
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:03:04 -0000

So, I _think_ the way the main document page behaves now was intended to 
protect people on low bandwidth or expensive bandwidth connections from 
very large documents.

Is that still something we should consider important? Or would it be 
better if the main page served the whole document all the time?


On 2/26/21 11:46 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Moved from rfc-interest (BCC) to tools-discuss.
>>     My pet hate is that I have to scroll to the bottom before I can tell the
>      system that I want the lot.
> (Are hates what peeves become when fully grown? :)
> One the one hand, I get it.  I find it annoying too.  On the other hand, you're presumably already down at the bottom of the page at the time you see it. On the third hand, it's annoying to have to tweak the link if you already started sharing it. On the fourth hand, it could be an easy change.
> When would you want to get the full document?  When you click on a document from the WG page?  (e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/acme/documents/ )