Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

> On 18 Aug 2016, at 12:29 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> 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   https://www.mnot.net/