Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Joe,

On 17/08/2016 16:08, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 8/16/2016 11:42 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2016, at 3:23 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
  [snip]
>>>> If that's the case, I'd observe that the IETF isn't an academic publisher, and acknowledging all prior work in an area is neither practical, nor required, nor current practice.
>>> Plagiarism isn't an issue limited to academic environments. Publication
>>> of a document on the web is still publication.
>> Sure. It also isn't a legal issue in this form (unless you're asserting copyright?). Effectively, it's a cultural norm. Again, I will point out that in the culture of the IETF, we historically have not cited the complete provenance of every idea, both because it's impractical and because it doesn't benefit the reader.
> Although that's true in the smallest cases, the IETF does have two
> concepts that support this norm: an author list and a set of references.
>
> Can you explain how it helps the reader to not cite two documents that
> are both squarely in the same area as this doc (interaction between HTTP
> and TCP and the impact of running many small connections closed at the
> client as for HTTP)?
Instead of starting your discussion with words like "plagiarism", you 
could have just asked for information to be clarified and a 
citation/acknowledgement added? With your current introduction you 
pissed off lots of people.
>> As far as I know, the IETF does not have a stated position about what you regard as PLAGIARISM. Hopefully we can get some clarity about that from the ADs, as well as some definitive evidence of what you're asserting.
> You can if you want, but my primary point here is to have this work
> corrected - and to stop the myth that "it doesn't matter" whether
> *reasonable* citations are included.
Noted.