Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX? As a chair, I convert PPT and PPTX to PDF first, and always upload the PDF. (And I ask participants to send me PDF in the first place.) +1 Bob Some people prefer to send PPT(X) because they want to do fancy animations. I try to discourage that, unless they can really make the case that the animations make things significantly clearer. So far, no one has even tried to convince me. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IETF] Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote: +1 The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where you would take that up. It also hadn't occurred to me that people might actually prefer PPT over the more open PPTX format. I've also noticed that you can get problems when exporting to PDF using Office for Mac 2008. It mangles ligatures when you copypaste the PDF contents into something else. Yes… This part is REALLY annoying… Wanting to be a good jabber scribe, I try insert the slide titles into the jabber room so that folk can follow along at home…. Cutting and pasting from PDFs exported by Office (including on Windows) gives me things like: Algorithm*MigraFon*Documents* Sure, I can type / retype the slide tutles, but I tpye raelly pooorly... W Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Recent ITU Newslog Article Regarding MPLS-TP
I am sending this note to make sure that everyone is aware of the recent article. I understand that some people felt the article was unclear, and I hope the following note helps. Russ Begin forwarded message: From: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com Date: November 15, 2011 5:23:15 AM EST To: Malcolm Johnson malcolm.john...@itu.int Subject: Re: MPLS Dear Malcolm: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/newslog/Statement+Ahead+Of+IETF+Meeting.aspx Thanks for getting this posted. It has already gotten a lot of visibility. Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I'd like to repeat two things that came up while we were drafting the newslog article. These also reflect the IETF's understanding of the newslog article. I'll forward this note to the IETF participants to be sure that we're all in sync here. First, the text of the newslog article re-affirms the JWT agreement from 2008 as captured in RFC 5317. In particular, the IETF standards process will continue to be used for all MPLS-TP architecture and protocol documents. Second, since G.8113.1 contains a protocol that is not a product of the IETF standards process, it cannot be a part of MPLS-TP according to the conditions of the JWT agreement and the newslog article. The IETF anticipates one of the following actions will be taken to conform to this agreement. Either (1) G.8113.1 will be withdrawn, or (2) the title of G.8113.1 will be changed, and the content will be revised to reflect that it is not included as part of MPLS or MPLS-TP protocol suite.. Also, thanks for sending me the TD527/P document from the SG15 Chairman. I note that it proposes the progression of both G.8113.1 and G.8113.2 as MPLS standards. This approach is not consistent with the JWT agreement or the newslog article. I believe this is a constructive step forward. I look forward to a resolution that fully respects the JWT agreement and moves our two organizations further toward collaborative standards development. Russ On Nov 12, 2011, at 5:18 AM, Johnson, Malcolm wrote: Thanks Russ We will publish first thing Monday. Hope you had a good trip and wish you a successful meeting Malcolm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote: +1 The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where you would take that up. It also hadn't occurred to me that people might actually prefer PPT over the more open PPTX format. It may be open, but there are fewer implementations. Yes, Open/Neo/LibreOffice supports it, but those presentations run much slower than equivalent PPT. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IETF] Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 2011-11-15 23:13, Warren Kumari wrote: On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote: +1 The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where you would take that up. I missed the discussion of that change. It also hadn't occurred to me that people might actually prefer PPT over the more open PPTX format. I haven't fallen for the notion that OOXML is open. I saw too much of that particular sausage been forced through the ISO sausage machine. It's just a pragmatic issue for me - PPT was successfully reverse engineered many years ago. I will update my OpenOffice to see if it really handles PPTX properly, when I get a chance. I've also noticed that you can get problems when exporting to PDF using Office for Mac 2008. It mangles ligatures when you copypaste the PDF contents into something else. Yes… This part is REALLY annoying… Wanting to be a good jabber scribe, I try insert the slide titles into the jabber room so that folk can follow along at home…. Cutting and pasting from PDFs exported by Office (including on Windows) gives me things like: Algorithm*MigraFon*Documents* I don't know the Mac situation, but this isn't an uncommon class of problem; I see it quite often in random PDF documents. Nothing is perfect. One approach is to print the document via a virtual PostScript printer to a .ps file and then convert the .ps to .pdf using ghostscript. That usually seems to produce sane PDF. Sure, I can type / retype the slide tutles, but I tpye raelly pooorly... ;-) Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's unreasonable to use it. By suipport it, you mean accept it and convert it to something else, a meaning of support with which I'm unfamiliar. I'd say tolerate. What's worse is that if you post PPT/X, it gets converted not to PDF, but to HTML, which I find awkward for slides (it's harder to download a presentation as a whole in a convenient form). That's why I do the PDF conversion up front. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15 Nov 2011, at 20:46, Barry Leiba wrote: By suipport it, you mean accept it and convert it to something else, a meaning of support with which I'm unfamiliar. I'd say tolerate. Well, support may have been a little strong - specifically the meeting materials page says: You can only upload a presentation file in txt, pdf, doc, or ppt/pptx. System will not accept presentation files in any other format. What's worse is that if you post PPT/X, it gets converted not to PDF, but to HTML, which I find awkward for slides (it's harder to download a presentation as a whole in a convenient form). That's why I do the PDF conversion up front. Yes, that _is_ a good reason to convert to PDF up front, ligature problems notwithstanding. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why are we accepting them ? Marshall On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX? As a chair, I convert PPT and PPTX to PDF first, and always upload the PDF. (And I ask participants to send me PDF in the first place.) +1 Bob Some people prefer to send PPT(X) because they want to do fancy animations. I try to discourage that, unless they can really make the case that the animations make things significantly clearer. So far, no one has even tried to convince me. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/15/2011 9:14 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why are we accepting them ? Marshall Because the world has evolved since Office v0 was released unlike the IETF. PPTX is Office 2007 format and there are formal readers and format API's for office so that this is a no brainer. http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=6 Todd On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Bob Hindenbob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX? As a chair, I convert PPT and PPTX to PDF first, and always upload the PDF. (And I ask participants to send me PDF in the first place.) +1 Bob Some people prefer to send PPT(X) because they want to do fancy animations. I try to discourage that, unless they can really make the case that the animations make things significantly clearer. So far, no one has even tried to convince me. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Todd S. Glassey This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with personal disclaimers. Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
From: todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net PPTX is Office 2007 format and there are formal readers and format API's for office so that this is a no brainer. http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=6 Gee, I don't see my OS listed on that page. What do I do know? Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15 November 2011 18:56, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote: Gee, I don't see my OS listed on that page. What do I do know? Let DuckDuckGo tell you what it knows about Powerpoint viewer ubuntu. FWIW I like ppt(x) better than pdf, anything pdf is huge. For simple slides (x)html or whatever the slide option of xml2rfc produces could be nice, packaged as mozilla archive format or any other style of a zipped subdirectory. -Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
todd glassey wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why are we accepting them ? I would appreciate if that datatracker simply rejected PPTX on upload. It is several mangnitudes more efficient to have the uploaded simply select a different option on save rather than to bother dozens of consumers with having to spend hours and/or $$ to obtain a computing environment that is capable of visualizing PPTX. Because the world has evolved since Office v0 was released unlike the IETF. PPTX is Office 2007 format and there are formal readers and format API's for office so that this is a no brainer. http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=6 And where is the download URL for an officially *FREE* license of Microsoft Windows that is a prerequisite for this player? While I do have OpenOffice on about half of my dozen computing environments, none of them is sufficiently new to process PPTX. I'm a developer and need my time for work, rather than constantly wrangling of software updates of software that I hardly use myself, like OpenOffice. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15 November 2011 19:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: And where is the download URL for an officially *FREE* license of Microsoft Windows that is a prerequisite for this player? http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=enid=11575 Free as in 120 days and you can install a PPT viewer and you need a player for their virtual hard disk image format. While I hate anything pdf I fear that this solution only to play PPT(X) would be *much* worse. Untested simpler idea: If you accept to get a Google docs account all these horrible document formats could be stored as Google docs in the cloud and shared with everybody using a compatible browser (as temporarily defined by Google, not necessarily IE6/7 or FF3). -Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15/11/2011 18:28, Martin Rex wrote: While I do have OpenOffice on about half of my dozen computing environments, none of them is sufficiently new to process PPTX. I'm a developer and need my time for work, rather than constantly wrangling of software updates of software that I hardly use myself, like OpenOffice. I agree. OOo has only supported pptx for the last 3 years, and you're right that it's totally unrealistic to expect that everyone upgrade any of their installations within this sort of time-frame. Personally, I'm pretty upset that I can't display any of these new-fangled formats on my VT52. I put this down to sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the IETF. Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Frank Ellermann wrote: On 15 November 2011 19:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: And where is the download URL for an officially *FREE* license of Microsoft Windows that is a prerequisite for this player? http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=enid=11575 Free as in 120 days and you can install a PPT viewer and you need a player for their virtual hard disk image format. You mean free as in Expires: This image will shutdown and become completely unusable on November 17, 2011. This is for the 366 MB Windows XP image, the others are completely out of question due to their size. Btw. the Vista and Win7 image are more like 60 days rather than 120 days: Note: You may be required to activate the OS as the product key has been deactivated. [...] You can activate up to two rearms (type slmgr rearm at the command prompt) which will extend the trial for another 30 days. If downloading and running several hundred megabytes is considered an option, then you will be *MUCH* better of with a Linux Live-CD like Knoppix 6.7.0 at 700MByte for the CD, which includes LibreOffice 3.3.3 that seems capable of opening PPTX. But still, that is a lot of work that needs a lot of space, and while this may work on an x86 or x64 PC or sufficiently powerful notebook, it may work between hardly to not-at-all for much more constrained gadgets (tablets) because of cpu type, hdd/sdd/flash capacity and main memory size. While I hate anything pdf I fear that this solution only to play PPT(X) would be *much* worse. No, it would be *MUCH* better. If you want movies, upload them to youtube. Using PDFs for the datatracker is *MUCH* better (and it is much more likely that it can still be looked at in 15 years, whereas support for any particular PPT-Format seems to be less than 10 years.) Untested simpler idea: If you accept to get a Google docs account all these horrible document formats could be stored as Google docs in the cloud and shared with everybody using a compatible browser (as temporarily defined by Google, not necessarily IE6/7 or FF3). If anything, then the datatracker should automatically convert any uploaded PPT to PDF itself. And those that do not like the particular conversion performed by datatracker would be free to perform their prefererred conversion to PDF prior to uploading. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:23:56 -0800, todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net said: tg PPTX is Office 2007 format and there are formal readers and format tg API's for office so that this is a no brainer. Great. I do note that .odp is no where on the accepted list that people have been posting (granted, I'm lazy, so I haven't checked the list myself). Can we get the OO suite formats accepted too? It seems silly we're allowing .pptx and similar MS branded files, but not accepting .odp and other files. OO/Libre has been around far longer than recent 2007 and even older MS updates, so lets accept them as valid document types as well. They certainly work on more platforms that the .ppt and similar formats. So, IMHO *either* we accept only .pdf or we accept a whole lot more. Yes, I could go down the road of ok, then we can use magic point, and all sorts of other ones too. Yes, we could... but they're not nearly as popular. But I'd argue .odp is certainly as popular in this crowd, if not more so, than .ppt. -- Wes Hardaker SPARTA, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Nick Hilliard wrote: Martin Rex wrote: While I do have OpenOffice on about half of my dozen computing environments, none of them is sufficiently new to process PPTX. I'm a developer and need my time for work, rather than constantly wrangling of software updates of software that I hardly use myself, like OpenOffice. I agree. OOo has only supported pptx for the last 3 years, and you're right that it's totally unrealistic to expect that everyone upgrade any of their installations within this sort of time-frame. Correct. Upgrading an installation takes me a full week until it works as smoothly as the original working environment. I don't have more than one week per year available for such waste, and about 10 different productive computing environment, which results in a useful lifetime of a work environment of 10 years. Personally, I'm pretty upset that I can't display any of these new-fangled formats on my VT52. I put this down to sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the IETF. It would be a pretty bad idea for the IETF to join the planned obsolescence choir for computing environments so that any Tablet you buy today will be unable to visualize stuff that will be uploaded to the IETF datatracker in late 2014. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15 November 2011 20:33, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: You mean free as in Expires: This image will shutdown and become completely unusable on November 17, 2011. Yes, or rather, EAGAIN on November 18, that should give you the next 120 days period for XP images. AFAIK the Vista images are more flexible... This is for the 366 MB Windows XP image ...small caveat, the purpose of this image is to test Web pages for IE6. They can ditch it as soon as they realize that this is in conflict with their own phase out IE6 policy. If you happen to have an unused W2K key you could find W2K images via YouTube. I'm too lazy to type all security considerations for the W2K image approach, but W2K can install and run a PPT viewer. FWIW it can also install and run Adobe Reader 8 as PDF viewer. Don't try Adobe Reader 9 with only 256K virtual RAM. If downloading and running several hundred megabytes is considered an option, then you will be *MUCH* better of with a Linux Live-CD like Knoppix 6.7.0 at 700MByte for the CD, which includes LibreOffice 3.3.3 that seems capable of opening PPTX. Sure, if you like that better go for it. I went the opposite way, I removed LibreOffice from a collection of portable apps (for a definition of portable related to W2K or XP or better 32bit NT), and I uninstalled a free MS Office Live 10 shipped with my Win 7 box, because simple DOC(X) and PPT(X) viewers are faster and even can print as XPS (if I want to keep the rendered output). But XPS is unsuited for W2K, therefore I guess it is hopeless for other platforms including Debian (Knoppix/Ubuntu/...). While I hate anything pdf I fear that this solution only to play PPT(X) would be *much* worse. No, it would be *MUCH* better. If you want movies, upload them to youtube. Using PDFs for the datatracker is *MUCH* better (and it is much more likely that it can still be looked at in 15 years, whereas support for any particular PPT-Format seems to be less than 10 years.) Slides are IMO not really movies, at least not the simple slides used for IETF presentations. On YouTube you'd get Flash or some HTML5 video format, folks unhappy with PPT(X) might not be happier with this approach. If anything, then the datatracker should automatically convert any uploaded PPT to PDF itself. Well, I'd prefer PPT if only PPT and PDF are offered for viewing, and I'd prefer anything based on W3C XHTML 1.0 without scripts. -Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15/11/2011 19:40, Martin Rex wrote: While I do have OpenOffice on about half of my dozen computing environments, [...] Correct. Upgrading an installation takes me a full week until it works as smoothly as the original working environment. I don't have more than one week per year available for such waste. Ok, so let me get this right: 12 computing environments, all of which are out of date by at least 3 years, and you can only afford one week every year for managing updates - which is enough time to update exactly one installation. And because of this awkward situation you find yourself in, you feel that the IETF should hold off supporting a 5 year old file format, supported by the majority of computers in the world? Please excuse my naivety. I'm new around here. Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/15/2011 12:18 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: Please excuse my naivety. I'm new around here. That sort of sarcasm has a tendency not to work out in the longer run. Anyway, my personal preference (since that's what we're all asserting) is to use a format supported by a wider variety of tools, and that appears to be pdf. But that said, if we want a soupy format that supports animation and splashy backgrounds and WYSYWIG editing and all the stuff we've been conditioned to love, why not go with a something like ODF - the tools really are free and it's supported on a wider variety of platforms. That is to say, it seems possible to me that OpenOffice may not be the workaround, but rather the solution. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/16/11 5:29 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 11/15/2011 12:18 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: Please excuse my naivety. I'm new around here. That sort of sarcasm has a tendency not to work out in the longer run. Anyway, my personal preference (since that's what we're all asserting) is to use a format supported by a wider variety of tools, and that appears to be pdf. But that said, if we want a soupy format that supports animation and splashy backgrounds and WYSYWIG editing and all the stuff we've been conditioned to love, why not go with a something like ODF - the tools really are free and it's supported on a wider variety of platforms. That is to say, it seems possible to me that OpenOffice may not be the workaround, but rather the solution. Perhaps folks will write HTML5 apps for all that splashy stuff. :) /psa ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
From: Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie 12 computing environments, all of which are out of date by at least 3 years, and you can only afford one week every year for managing updates - which is enough time to update exactly one installation. ... Please excuse my naivety. I'm new around here. If there's any activity more boring, and less truly productive, than updating to the latest rev of a software environment, I'd like to know what it is. I have a long list of things that seem to me like a better use of my time, including: - working on new networking architectures - going for a walk with my dogs - studying woodblock prints to update the online catalog raisonnes I'm working on for a couple of major Japanese woodblock artists - listening to music (baroque, jazz, etc, etc) - etc, etc, etc, etc. Somehow I doubt that on their deathbed (to paraphrase an old aphorism) anyone's going to be saying 'Gee, I wish I'd spent more of my time in this realm installing Service Pack 7 of Microsloth Defenstrator'. Stomps off. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 82 Audio Streaming - Updated
On 11/14/2011 3:07 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: Within expected paramaters... it's not like I generated MOS scores, but they all sound pretty much like they should. OK, I think I get you. All streams appear to be of reasonably good quality. And yet you grew up listening to NASA mission control announcements during launch broadcasts, didn't you? That's certainly where I constantly heard the term used with exactly this meaning. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote: you feel that the IETF should hold off supporting a 5 year old file format, supported by the majority of computers in the world? Please excuse my naivety. I'm new around here. I'm not exactly sure of all of the IETF procedures for such things, but how about coming up with a simple policy about file formats? Something like this: --- In the interest of 1) Facilitating work 2) Making its work available to as wide an audience as possible, and 3) Lowering barriers to participation... ...the IETF tries to the best of its ability to use open file formats unencumbered by royalties, patents, trade secrets, and other legal or obfuscation muck that gets in the way of participation by all persons. Whenever possible, formats are chosen that do not limit access due to financial ability or physical impairment. One of the simplest formats of all, plain text, has served the IETF and other groups for decades. Keeping the simplicity and open nature of that format in mind, the IETF's League of Extraordinary File Formatters [or whatever committee you dream up] may choose other file formats to be used for interchange. Whenever preparing files to share with others, please consider making the content in the files available in multiple formats. For now, the following formats are considered Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS): - plain text (encoding?) - PDF (with restrictions) - HTML (some version, no scripting?) - JPG, PNG - Ogg Vorbis - Ogg Theora - [ Etc... ] If you wish to make a document available in a format not in the current GRAS list, please make a version of that document available in a GRAS format (marked as a translation). Make sure that the GRAS-formatted document retains as much of the content and other information from the original document as possible. If content or functionality are lost, please document the differences in an accompanying document translated filename_lost-in-translation.txt For example: my-lovely-presentation_v1.0.ppt my-lovely-presentation_v1.0-translation.pdf my-lovely-presentation_v1.0-translation.pdf_lost-in-translation.txt To make it possible for people to view the GRAS file formats, we have assembled a list of compatible software for multiple operating systems: [ put in a table of free/Free software for each OS here ] - To maximize compatibility, it could be prudent for the IETF to only choose file formats that are (as Nick mentions above) 5 years old or older. Of course, there could be exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Would the creation of some such spec/committee be helpful? -- Robinson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15/11/2011 21:29, Melinda Shore wrote: That sort of sarcasm has a tendency not to work out in the longer run. no, probably not. It's just that I've been hearing the same complaint about unwillingness to upgrade to widely-supported file / display / etc formats for as long I've been dabbling on the internet. The complaint lost its rustic charm a long time ago, if it ever had any. The world moves on. The thing is, pptx is very widely supported and has been widely supported for several years. And no matter how much we all dislike upgrading our desktops, I'm finding it really hard to sympathise with people complaining about a format which is already supported or can trivially be supported by the 94%-odd of all office/productivity suite installations in the world. If this is peoples' position, why not revert to ascii7 for everything? Is it really _that_ hard to upgrade to OOo 3.x? Or to install the office-xml binary shim set for office 2003? Incidentally, I am not a supporter of free-for-all file format support, but solely because of posterity support: the ietf archives will be of interest to historians one day, and there is no better way to make it difficult to analyse things than by accepting a multitude of file formats, some of which change rapidly or have bizarrely different and incompatible implementations (e.g. odf). Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/15/2011 01:13 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: Incidentally, I am not a supporter of free-for-all file format support, but solely because of posterity support: the ietf archives will be of interest to historians one day, and there is no better way to make it difficult to analyse things than by accepting a multitude of file formats, some of which change rapidly or have bizarrely different and incompatible implementations (e.g. odf). Librarian, here. As a fan of the unusual argument I love the suggestion that future researchers will have an easier time with undocumented, proprietary formats, and therefore in the present day we should all be required to run behemothware so that we can be able to look at slides loaded with the sort of Features that Tufte warned us about. Odd to see an IETF participant arguing against interoperability, BTW. Anyway, I remain unconvinced. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15/11/2011 21:33, Noel Chiappa wrote: If there's any activity more boring, and less truly productive, than updating to the latest rev of a software environment, I'd like to know what it is. Exquisitely boring, yes. But if refusal to upgrade causes current compatibility problems, then it is actively interfering with your productivity and that's probably worse than dealing with the 1/2 hour of tedium associated with upgrading the software every several years. At least it is for me - your set of requirements may be different. I have a long list of things that seem to me like a better use of my time, including: I have a list like that too. But it doesn't mean that my living room carpet doesn't need to be vacuumed every couple of years, regardless of how unproductive and tedious that is. Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Nick == Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie writes: Nick I agree. OOo has only supported pptx for the last 3 years, Nick and you're right that it's totally unrealistic to expect that Nick everyone upgrade any of Nick their installations within this sort of time-frame. So, it's not available on Ubuntu LTS desktop. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 11/15/2011 04:53 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: Nick == Nick Hilliardn...@inex.ie writes: Nick I agree. OOo has only supported pptx for the last 3 years, Nick and you're right that it's totally unrealistic to expect that Nick everyone upgrade any of Nick their installations within this sort of time-frame. So, it's not available on Ubuntu LTS desktop. Ubuntu 10.04 is the most recent LTS release, and certainly includes OpenOffice. It includes version 3.2.0 in fact. -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies Jabber: kflem...@digium.com | SIP: kpflem...@digium.com | Skype: kpfleming 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA Check us out at www.digium.com www.asterisk.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15/11/2011 22:30, Melinda Shore wrote: Librarian, here. As a fan of the unusual argument I love the suggestion that future researchers will have an easier time with undocumented, proprietary formats, and therefore in the present day we should all be required to run behemothware so that we can be able to look at slides loaded with the sort of Features that Tufte warned us about. Odd to see an IETF participant arguing against interoperability, BTW. That sort of sarcasm has a tendency not to work out in the longer run. Oh wait, didn't someone else say that already? :-) In fact, I deleted a paragraph that I had written about accepting multiple formats and converting everything into a common format, simply because the IETF does that already with pdf. Possibly deleting this didn't help the email context. My point was merely that no file format is ideal: ascii7 has elegant simplicity but hobbles presentation format style. PDF is widely supported, and I am informed that PDF/A is considered suitable for long-term preservation (thanks R.P. for pointing this out offline). However, pdf is a monstrous bag of horrors internally and forensic historians of the future will not necessarily love us for it, particularly if they are picking apart corrupted pdfs with some of the more exotic constructions. Full documentation is available for Microsoft doc/docx/ppt/pptx formats, regardless of your assertion that these are undocumented - and the xml versions are slightly less godawful than the binary formats. ODF is documented badly enough to the extent that incompatible but compliant versions exist. Take your pick. FWIW, my preference would be to accept current common formats on the datatracker, including pptx/docx/etc, to convert them immediately to some form of lowest common denominator (e.g. pdf, with all the information loss that that entails) and then to post the original format for current consumption, the converted format for posterity, and if possible a text format version. But that's more work than the (reasonable) current ietf position of just publishing PDFs. Re: Tufte, I often wonder if he doesn't have a feline mass grave in his back yard for all the stultifyingly awful ppts imposed upon bored audiences over the years. Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Nick Hilliard wrote: Martin Rex wrote: While I do have OpenOffice on about half of my dozen computing environments, [...] Correct. Upgrading an installation takes me a full week until it works as smoothly as the original working environment. I don't have more than one week per year available for such waste. Ok, so let me get this right: 12 computing environments, all of which are out of date by at least 3 years, and you can only afford one week every year for managing updates - which is enough time to update exactly one installation. And because of this awkward situation you find yourself in, you feel that the IETF should hold off supporting a 5 year old file format, supported by the majority of computers in the world? What is much more important is that the data formats used by the IETF will still be fully supported in 15-20 years. For a new, and more so a proprietary data format, it takes at least 5 years to figure out whether it is widely adopted and will be supported at least 15-20 years into the future. None of my working environments is actually out of date -- or they would not be working environments. Our customers are actually paying a lot of money to get our software supported on platforms for more than 10 years (2-3 years in development plus 10 years in full support, and a few more years). The code that I develop (middleware stuff: gss-api,tls,pkix,cms) is compiled for a variety of platforms (SunOS 5.8-5.11, AIX 4.3.3-6.1, HP-UX 11.0-11.31, Linux SLES 7-11, OS/390 10.00-20.00, MS Windows 5.0-6.1, plus a few that we will discontinue end of 2013, including OSF/1.) Home and Laptop is 3xWinXP,Linux-32,Linux-64,Win7-64 At work it is XP,XP-64,SunOS,Linux-32,Linux-64,Win7-32 Every data or file format that I can use on only a small subset of my work environments in a royal PITA to deal with. PDF is OK, PPT is bad, PPTX is horrible. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
What is much more important is that the data formats used by the IETF will still be fully supported in 15-20 years. For a new, and more so a proprietary data format, ... I'm confused. When you say a proprietary data format, I presume you mean Microsoft's closed and undocumented PPT format, as opposed to PPTX which is ISO/IEC Standard 29500. So you're arguing that everyone should move to the standard PPTX. Or did you mean something else? R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 2011-11-16 13:56, John Levine wrote: What is much more important is that the data formats used by the IETF will still be fully supported in 15-20 years. For a new, and more so a proprietary data format, ... I'm confused. When you say a proprietary data format, I presume you mean Microsoft's closed and undocumented PPT format, as opposed to PPTX which is ISO/IEC Standard 29500. So you're arguing that everyone should move to the standard PPTX. Or did you mean something else? John, You seem to assume that OOXML is a fully defined open standard whereby anybody can take the ISO/IEC document and implement a fully interoperable product. From what I know about the technical objections that were raised and ignored in the ISO/IEC equivalent of Last Call, that may not be the case. (I don't claim technical expertise in this area, however.) The same objection wouldn't apply, for example, to PDF/A. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:28 AM, Martin Rex wrote: todd glassey wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why are we accepting them ? I would appreciate if that datatracker simply rejected PPTX on upload. It is several mangnitudes more efficient to have the uploaded simply select a different option on save rather than to bother dozens of consumers with having to spend hours and/or $$ to obtain a computing environment that is capable of visualizing PPTX. I agree in principle, but I have just converted a .pptx presentation (with some animations that will be lost) into PDF. The PPTX was 250K, the PDF is 2MB. 8 times as much. I know that bandwidth is cheap and all, but I really don't like the inefficiency. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Plagued by PPTX again
I think all of you guys are getting a little too serious about this thing. Here's my take: even in a 100% Microsoft shop, .pptx is a pain as much as .xlsx and .docx. And yes, I know about the free fileformatconverters.exe, thank you very much. It does not work on my Microsoft cell phone that does not read .pptx, but does read .ppt. .pptx is a pain in the arse. I don't care if it's standard, legally standard, IETF approved, de-facto standard, or anything. Even if one is using a newer version of PowerPoint, one can save as .ppt. .pptx is just like HTML in a mailing list: just say no. Michel. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
John Levine wrote: What is much more important is that the data formats used by the IETF will still be fully supported in 15-20 years. For a new, and more so a proprietary data format, ... I'm confused. When you say a proprietary data format, I presume you mean Microsoft's closed and undocumented PPT format, as opposed to PPTX which is ISO/IEC Standard 29500. So you're arguing that everyone should move to the standard PPTX. Or did you mean something else? PPTX is still proprietary. That things is so insanely huge and complex that hardly anyone can create an interoperable implementation. Microsoft regularly failed to created compatible implementations of their earlier DOC and PPT formats in later Office releases, so I would actually be surprised if they succeeded for this monster called ISO/ETC 29500. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IPv6 multicast demos in the terminal room at IETF 82
Two Multicast for IPv6 Transition Demonstrations are taking place this week in the terminal room (4F VIP room) from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm. On Friday, of course, the demonstration will end at 1:00 pm when the meeting closes. Transition from IPv6 to IPv4 must support key multicast applications such as IPTV. As different carriers and cable operators (MSOs) attempt to transition multicast applications like IPTV from IPv4 to IPv6, the efforts run into common problems. As wisdom emerges from these early attempts, IP experts from vendors and carriers wish to save this wisdom in a set of IETF Best Common Practice (BCP) RFCs. In order to hasten this work, the experts have requested a Working Group (WG) called Multrans be formed in the operations area. Since the IETF strongly encourages that multiple vendors and multiple carriers be involved in developing the Best Common Practice (BCP) RFC based on real-world experience, to hasten this work, two operators has worked with two vendors to develop demonstration code that can perform IPv4 to IPv6 transition for multicast. Demo1: Multicast Extension to DS-Lite Technique in Broadband Deployments Implementations oftTwo IETF Softwires WG I-Ds are demonstrated: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-behave-64-multicast-address-format/ Demo 2: Multicast for IPv6 Transition Demo Implementations of four IETF I-Ds are demonstrated: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-venaas-behave-v4v6mc-framework/ http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsou-multrans-use-cases-00.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-behave-64-multicast-address-format/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Plagued by PPTX again
In the interest of 1) Facilitating work 2) Making its work available to as wide an audience as possible, and 3) Lowering barriers to participation... Right. We are talking about presentation slides, not about something that absolutely has to readable years hence. So the slides need to be in a format that 1) the chairs can display on their computers 2) the great majority of people who may be remotely participating can read on whatever up-to-date device they have 3) is relatively compact so that remote participants can download on-the-fly Sounds like pptx to me... and please do NOT consider another XML markup scheme and special IETF tools to create slides !!! Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call: draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-27.txt (Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2 (MRCPv2)) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Speech Services Control WG (speechsc) to consider the following document: - 'Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2 (MRCPv2)' draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-27.txt as a Proposed Standard This is a second IETF LC to verify the changes to the policy used for the vendor-specific parameters IANA registry, and the use of the set-cookie headers made in response to earlier last call comments and external review, and to verify the current normative reference (downref) to RFC 2483, an Experimental RFC. From the shepherd report: All normative references are standards track RFCs except for nominal DOWNREF is to RFC 2483; that reference is to the text/uri-list definition. MRCPv2 uses the same definition of text/uri-list as found in the IANA media types registry. We could make this reference Informative or be silent on the reference, as the MRCPv2 reference is to the IANA registry. However, the work group believes it to be useful to have a pointer to the definition of text/uri-list for implementers to follow. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-11-30. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The MRCPv2 protocol allows client hosts to control media service resources such as speech synthesizers, recognizers, verifiers and identifiers residing in servers on the network. MRCPv2 is not a stand-alone protocol - it relies on other protocols, such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to rendezvous MRCPv2 clients and servers and manage sessions between them, and the Session Description Protocol (SDP) to describe, discover and exchange capabilities. It also depends on SIP and SDP to establish the media sessions and associated parameters between the media source or sink and the media server. Once this is done, the MRCPv2 protocol exchange operates over the control session established above, allowing the client to control the media processing resources on the speech resource server. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
IPv6 multicast demos in the terminal room at IETF 82
Two Multicast for IPv6 Transition Demonstrations are taking place this week in the terminal room (4F VIP room) from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm. On Friday, of course, the demonstration will end at 1:00 pm when the meeting closes. Transition from IPv6 to IPv4 must support key multicast applications such as IPTV. As different carriers and cable operators (MSOs) attempt to transition multicast applications like IPTV from IPv4 to IPv6, the efforts run into common problems. As wisdom emerges from these early attempts, IP experts from vendors and carriers wish to save this wisdom in a set of IETF Best Common Practice (BCP) RFCs. In order to hasten this work, the experts have requested a Working Group (WG) called Multrans be formed in the operations area. Since the IETF strongly encourages that multiple vendors and multiple carriers be involved in developing the Best Common Practice (BCP) RFC based on real-world experience, to hasten this work, two operators has worked with two vendors to develop demonstration code that can perform IPv4 to IPv6 transition for multicast. Demo1: Multicast Extension to DS-Lite Technique in Broadband Deployments Implementations oftTwo IETF Softwires WG I-Ds are demonstrated: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-behave-64-multicast-address-format/ Demo 2: Multicast for IPv6 Transition Demo Implementations of four IETF I-Ds are demonstrated: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-venaas-behave-v4v6mc-framework/ http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsou-multrans-use-cases-00.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-behave-64-multicast-address-format/ ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
