Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Mark Nottingham <> Thu, 18 August 2016 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D5F12D605 for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:48:37 -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=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4glKX2AFmVFA for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:48:35 -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 9DA7912D593 for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1baDJL-0005qy-SH for; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 02:44:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 02:44:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1baDJG-0005pI-N6 for; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 02:43:58 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1baDJ9-0003tB-OF for; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 02:43:56 +0000
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2290B22E255; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:43:23 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:43:21 +1000
Cc:, HTTP Working Group <>, Patrick McManus <>, Daniel Stenberg <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Joe Touch <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.901, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1baDJ9-0003tB-OF ac0347a4ae3be9e47f1e4fe02b7cab1d
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32305
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

> On 18 Aug 2016, at 12:29 PM, Joe Touch <> wrote:

> There are plenty of ways that citation considerations avoid the issues
> you raise:
>    - does the document provide informational background?
>        are you claiming that the docs I cite do not?
>    - is it the original or most complete reference (it can be useful to
> cite surveys rather than original literature where the surveys cite the
> originals)
>        have you found an earlier or more complete reference?
> These considerations prevent people from merely claiming that their work
> should be gratuitously cited.

Sure, and if the WG adopts the document, we can have those discussions. Adopting the document does not mean that we're going to rubber-stamp its content; it's just being taken as a starting point.

In the meantime, let's discuss the scope of work being proposed and whether it's appropriate, what modifications might be needed, etc., so as to inform the decision to adopt.

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?

> I made my claim in the original post back in March - the bulk of the
> actual TCP interactions are discussed in more detail with rationale in
> the one document, and the same is true for the TIMEWAIT issue for the
> second document.
> The only argument I've seen put forth is that "RFCs don't need to cite
> things", which is false by nearly every RFC published.

Now you're misrepresenting what others have said.  Please stop.

Mark Nottingham