IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fwd: Re: [tcpm] FW: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 04 March 2016 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16ABC1A871A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:27:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PWxkD9H4kiZd for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:27:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A401A8715 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:27:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1abuNP-0001v9-FM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:22:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:22:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1abuNP-0001v9-FM@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <touch@isi.edu>) id 1abuNJ-0001nu-2y for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:22:53 +0000
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <touch@isi.edu>) id 1abuNH-0003Jh-3T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:22:52 +0000
Received: from [128.9.184.212] ([128.9.184.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u24ILiQW001971 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:21:45 -0800 (PST)
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
References: <56D74C23.5010705@isi.edu> <56D76A7E.7090507@isi.edu> <20160302232125.GA18275@1wt.eu> <56D77892.2000308@isi.edu> <20160303065545.GA18412@1wt.eu> <56D87BAC.4060204@isi.edu> <20160303184418.GA18774@1wt.eu> <CAOdDvNokUDxmfy87VrQNLoQvQknP6L3h6fLbuFeVpOiDN4szAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: touch@isi.edu, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56D9D235.9000106@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:21:41 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNokUDxmfy87VrQNLoQvQknP6L3h6fLbuFeVpOiDN4szAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.9.160.161; envelope-from=touch@isi.edu; helo=boreas.isi.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1abuNH-0003Jh-3T 3eb328d930817ce6a0575ff7da9685f4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [tcpm] FW: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/56D9D235.9000106@isi.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31180
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Popping back up to the main point:

- there is very little in this doc that is specific to HTTP

	there is a lot of good advice in the literature
	about how to implement big servers (incl. TCP-based),
	and there is no good reason to try to condense that into
	an RFC

- the advice in this doc is often at odds with existing TCP advise

	Advice on changing/configuring TCP ought to happen on TCPM
	or TSVWG, not here.

IMO, the doc in its current form is no better than the kind of advice
that can be found on Google.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email