RE: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt syntax

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email protected]]
>
> Monday, November 11, 2002, 2:43:43 PM, you wrote:
> Adam> The situation seems analogous to complaining about the size
> Adam> of an Oldsmobile Delta 88, ...
> 
> the imagery is quaint, but skips past the point I made about 
> how irrelevant
> the inefficiency of XML headers is.

Yes, I take contention with those statements also, although
I'm having a slightly harder time quantifying it.

> If a message is small, the percentage of "waste" is quite high.
> But because the message is small, it doesn't matter.
>
> If a message is large, the bulk of the space is the content,
> not the headers.  So, the inefficiencies of the header syntax
> won't matter.

The second statement is self-evident. The first, even on its own,
appears fallacious. When it's contrasted directly with the second,
it's thrown into relief. Intutively, it seems obvious that you
can't have it both ways.

One of the reasons I'm sensitized to this issue comes from the
work I've been doing recently, which involves IM over existing
wireless networks (think 1xRTT, not 802.11b). While the wireless
carriers are taking the remarkable step of embracing IETF
protocols, there is a constant tension with the space inefficency
that many such protocols introduce. When each byte is adding another
full millisecond of latency to message transmission, you start
counting them a little more closely. When those bytes are actively
displacing other billable services, the pain doubles.

And the more often we have to explain to wireless carriers why
a 20-character instant message takes a full kilobyte over
the air, the more likely they are to walk away from the IETF
altogether and do their own thing.

/a



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]