Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Joe Touch <> Wed, 17 August 2016 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79BF12DC3E for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwgKDwpTGGvX for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:13:15 -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 A4AE812DC44 for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ba2Sg-0003ny-3U for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:08:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:08:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ba2SX-0003nC-1M for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:08:49 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ba2SV-00047v-DD for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:08:48 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u7HF87LG027468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Cc:, HTTP Working Group <>, Patrick McManus <>, Daniel Stenberg <>
From: Joe Touch <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:08:05 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Received-SPF: none client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.274, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1ba2SV-00047v-DD 356af5945b26ad960f4fad898d194772
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32281
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 8/16/2016 11:42 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Joe,
> I've pinged some ADs to weigh in on this.
> In the meantime -
>> On 17 Aug 2016, at 3:23 PM, Joe Touch <> wrote:
>> Plagiarism requires only that the material was published elsewhere
>> before. Intent has no bearing.
> So to paraphrase, you're accusing Daniel of failure to cite a relevant source out of ignorance in the first case... 
I'm being generous in assuming ignorance, but yes.

>> In addition, I informed the author - and both lists - about this over 5
>> months ago. You might claim that the first two versions were issued out
>> of ignorance, but you cannot claim that of the update.
> ... and then continuing to do so after being notified.
> Correct?

> Looking over <> and <>, I'm having trouble identifying passages that are plagiarised; can you show us?
It's the content - turning off Nagle, slow-start restart after idle, etc.

> In particular, the latter paper proposes TIME-WAIT negotiation using a TCP option, sending a RST from clients, and a HTTP extension,

It also outlines the whole problem for the first time and explains the
choice and impact of lowering TW timeout.

>  ...
> Also, how do you reconcile that with the statement in your original e-mail that the draft repeats your material "sometimes correctly, sometimes in error"? Have you considered that what you consider to be an error in his plagiarism might in fact be a different idea (no matter whose is ultimately correct)?
That might be a reasonable conclusion if there were discussion
explaining why the "different idea" was correct in comparison.

But that's missing. Saying to lower the timer for TW without discussing
the potential impact isn't a new idea. It's an incomplete discussion of
an old idea already discussed in detail elsewhere.

>>> 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)?

> 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.