Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 19 August 2016 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBE312D567 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J47pskzgp2Yg for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1485D12D195 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ban2I-0004mt-7w for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:52:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:52:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ban2I-0004mt-7w@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1ban28-0004lO-TP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:52:40 +0000
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com ([173.38.203.54]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1ban27-0005O6-6q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:52:40 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3622; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471625559; x=1472835159; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=uui4kGVxrtkimUq8mjHqkC9VSC4nK2htAgq1zqxgitc=; b=Rf2OTuDmRHzSFxHoVuoobT1Op5SBIjWhBuniEoNLrTEjNRxsA1cj54+W PbzjKD37CStdUSJ42bgWmPAy4j5/tZ1VZ+ekjQD+MTBLckwi7RMrqeosK TpscmOjtWmDcBPKqmqtqI/1/CihqFoziG7J1CO8cm6GmssdB+DQCwt64o o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ABBQDpN7dX/xbLJq1eDoQMKlK1YYQMhh0CghwRAgEBAQEBAQFeJ4RfAQUjVhALDgoqAgJXBgEMBgIBAYgtqjGQAAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEQDogjglWHQYJaAQSZR4M+gXOBYIgNgWuHa4V2hmiFVYN4NCCCDYEyPTo0hy0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,545,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="645025295"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Aug 2016 16:52:11 +0000
Received: from [10.61.211.158] ([10.61.211.158]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7JGqAVQ027584; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:52:10 GMT
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
References: <5CD67877-19E3-4E79-BBF2-3E270343A378@mnot.net> <2197232f-10d7-28cb-fcc9-05bd495e3c22@isi.edu> <20160817064545.GD16017@1wt.eu> <7f7b129c-f156-d067-bef8-4a2213f461ac@isi.edu> <20160817180802.GA16773@1wt.eu> <4ab7c5b0-3722-1346-f481-a8d76de70034@isi.edu> <20160817211317.GA16929@1wt.eu> <c928d1ca-fc89-d0b0-4e1a-8a0bd960d2bb@isi.edu> <CACweHNC1qFH5DMnZRE87bAE5sk_P+1z1Fzm-9YEu=E2DULkaYQ@mail.gmail.com> <27b58b64-48cd-39af-78b3-ef583c585fa6@isi.edu> <20160818053837.GC16773@1wt.eu> <7a36e025-4882-4f8b-7a83-9fdcd990a971@isi.edu> <BFE4FC25-CCCA-4390-AADD-BCDBFE798790@mnot.net>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, tcpm@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8aaa9b2b-9dde-a198-70cd-299a7c04dda2@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:52:10 +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: <BFE4FC25-CCCA-4390-AADD-BCDBFE798790@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JKF0GXWvi4J6UhLqV5PGDHUvfEtjgCpN4"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=173.38.203.54; envelope-from=lear@cisco.com; helo=aer-iport-4.cisco.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=3.649, 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: maggie.w3.org 1ban27-0005O6-6q b74b7799d24f53b58f1f4c9a9d81a01b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/8aaa9b2b-9dde-a198-70cd-299a7c04dda2@cisco.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32331
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Just to be the stick in the mud for a moment...


On 8/19/16 5:49 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2016, at 1:07 AM, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> I do think that this doc needs to figure out whom it is speaking to, what advice they actually need, etc.
>>
>> If the result is a set of recommendations that involve the word "sysctl", I remain skeptical it is appropriate as an RFC
>
> I think there's broad agreement on both of these points.
>
> I'm wondering if it makes sense to aim it primarily at HTTP implementers rather than administrators, with the notion that it would inform:
>
> - Their implementation decisions
> - The configuration choices they offer to administrators / users
> - Their documentation (e.g., advice to their administrators when the implementation can't change the appropriate parts of the OS)
>
> Would that help? 
>
> If so, it might make sense to organise it into sections for clients and servers (and intermediaries, if there's anything that isn't covered by the combination of the first two). Although IIRC Daniel was already talking about doing that.
>
>

If there are very specific settings for Linux and they are well vetted,
I see no reason not to continue to include them in an appendix, as they
are now.  Cheat sheets are nice, and there is nothing wrong with a cheat
sheet being in an RFC (and I wouoldn't mind a few being RFCs).

Eliot