Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Jana Iyengar <> Sat, 03 September 2016 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041FD12B018 for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 01:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OK68WQLbj6pL for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 01:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C413B127A90 for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 01:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bg68K-00020r-MK for; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 08:17:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bg68E-0001zZ-N7 for; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 08:16:54 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bg68D-0001vx-Bk for; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 08:16:54 +0000
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bg68C-000DgP-SC for; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 08:16:53 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C239B68-8162-4FFE-AFFB-073DCF6E4B06"
To: Mark Nottingham <>
From: Jana Iyengar <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:06:15 +0000
Cc: Joe Touch <>,, HTTP Working Group <>, Daniel Stenberg <>, Patrick McManus <>
Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 10:16:50 +0200
Message-Id: <>
X-Name-Md5: efe3dad792d606410c9cc49cedaffc94
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1bg68D-0001vx-Bk dd274f41405fbbbd2e811c6bd53775d2
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32374
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>


[I have not have read the entire thread in detail, but responding to one question.]

I'd especially like to hear from other people in the TCP community; we've heard from Joe and Michael; do others share their opinions, or have another view?

Responding to this specific question: I think this document is useful. There's tremendous value in having a document that discusses protocol interactions, especially for the most important protocol interaction today (HTTP/TCP).  Pursuing this document as Informational makes complete sense, and is well within IETF norms.

Implementation notes/advice is actually quite a useful bit that traditionally shows up in appendices, but arguably it really doesn't matter where it shows up. It's valuable. I would remove specific APIs and instead talk about mechanisms that are common enough (remove setsockopt() and sysctls, but talk about Nagle, socket buffers, etc.) but there are a number of commonly deployed mechanisms that it makes sense to talk about them here. I would suggest that the document discuss important interactions from a browser's point of view as separate from those at a web server.

I am happy to review and suggest changes to the document, but I think it's a fine fit.

- jana