Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 17 August 2016 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B6012DB4C for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2RIt4vIUo5Mq for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:31:44 -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 5256D12DAAF for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ba3go-00014Y-N6 for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:27:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:27:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ba3gf-00013I-LY for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:27:29 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ba3gd-0000p3-U4 for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:27:29 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4135; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471451247; x=1472660847; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=U1ZU8DGNPrYpw3HMD9Rh1BakyMLPoHUKoD9NKroxRuk=; b=gk9oM2/7+BY76hLkNQBAaMylfRIORG0NMdUjGtGq8aVf2GP2F9S8kAQn DgEA7xvoPR+AJ9y2N4t+jCb/aO5CeG560A+9TCzpcpLvgp1OxiRc/ggNj rsXj17IK+u/SLopcf3kQyVOMa3TTPSzoxx3ugASfcIJvWfEYap1VFndNS E=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="642612116"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Aug 2016 16:27:00 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7HGQxep011051; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:27:00 GMT
To: Alexey Melnikov <>, Joe Touch <>, Mark Nottingham <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Cc:, HTTP Working Group <>, Patrick McManus <>, Daniel Stenberg <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:26:58 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DQ4muqgQV3PxbLNGhTHwp0IfqTdx9Bd8w"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=3.650, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1ba3gd-0000p3-U4 7e5d4f7b151b523e34235afab93d9348
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32285
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

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)?


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 <> 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.