Network questionnaires
A complaint about the time that repeated network questionnaires required from sites.
Kantrowitz, W., "Network questionnaires", RFC 459, DOI 10.17487/RFC0459, February 1973, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc459>.
@misc{rfc459,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 459,
howpublished = {RFC 459},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0459},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc459},
author = {W. Kantrowitz},
title = {{Network questionnaires}},
pagetotal = 1,
year = 1973,
month = feb,
} RFC text
Network Working Group W. Kantrowitz
RFC: 459 LL-TX-2
NIC: 14379 February 26, 1973
Network Questionnaires
In recent times, a steady stream of questionnaires has been arriving
from the network community. Each questionnaire creates an additional
distraction from more useful work and raises the general annoyance level
somewhat. The arrival of the seven-page NCP questionnaire (RFC 460) has
pushed the annoyance level over the top.
We are wondering if any of the questionnaire polluters has given any
thought to the fact that it takes time to fill out these questionnaires
especially if one wants to do a conscientious job and provide reasonable
answers to questions which are frequently only partially applicable.
It seems rather presumptuous for RFC 460 to provide a lengthy
questionnaire without any explanation as to the motivation for it and
then request a response in two weeks. And tantalize us yet with the
promise of additional questionnaires in the future.
Sites which have the luxury of people who have nothing better to do
than create questionnaires and other meta-work should realize that there
are some sites that operate with limited personnel resources, do have
something better to do, and will get nothing done if they are
continually swamped with all kinds of meta-work.
This material has not been reviewed for public release and is intended
only for use with the ARPA network. It should not be quoted or cited
in any publication not related to the ARPA network.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with ]
[ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 9/99 ]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1A Stream of Questionnaires
W. Kantrowitz of LL-TX-2 says a steady stream of questionnaires had been arriving from the network community. Each one took attention away from other work and increased annoyance. The seven-page NCP questionnaire in RFC 460 pushed the author's frustration over the top.
The author says network sites were receiving many questionnaires, and the latest one was especially long. Each request took time away from other work.
§1The Cost of Answering
The author notes that a careful response takes time, especially when questions apply only partly to the person answering. The memo objects that RFC 460 offers no explanation for its questionnaire's purpose and asks for a response within two weeks.
The author also criticizes the promise of more questionnaires. The concern is that requests should account for the work required at the sites asked to respond.
Answering a questionnaire carefully takes time, and some questions may not apply. The author asks senders to explain why they need the information and allow for the effort involved.
§1A Request to Consider Site Workloads
The note ends by asking people who create questionnaires and other meta-work to remember that some network sites have limited staff and other responsibilities. The author argues that repeated requests can prevent those sites from getting their work done.
The RFC is an opinion note about the burden of questionnaires; it does not define a network protocol.
The author asks questionnaire senders to consider that recipient sites have limited staff and other work to do. The note expresses an opinion and specifies no protocol.