Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps we can agree that the reasonable course of action here is for
Joe to (re)-recommend a compact set of citations to the authors, perhaps
even in some easily consumable form to them (kramdown-2629 or XML)?

Eliot


On 8/17/16 5:28 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>