Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Joe Touch <> Thu, 18 August 2016 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ED912D58A for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.167
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1WGd8PWAz7kb for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:24:40 -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 2F13F12D1BB for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1baDsr-0005NA-UC for; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:20:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:20:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1baDsl-0005MP-QU for; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:20:39 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1baDsc-0004PR-CJ for; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:20:31 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u7I3JmDm023134 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Cc:, HTTP Working Group <>, Patrick McManus <>, Daniel Stenberg <>
From: Joe Touch <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:19:45 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3DF91FCEB386408A0C7120EA"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Received-SPF: none client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.636, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1baDsc-0004PR-CJ a498fb021de132a20b6e4b7442491ca8
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32306
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 8/17/2016 7:43 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>> > 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.
Here's a list of everyone I can find from the list who has commented on
the issue of citation.

I agree that the quote above misrepresents your position, and I
apologize for that.

I leave the sum of everyone's words - hopefully quoted with enough
context to remain accurate - as context for how to proceed.




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.

{and in a later post:)

Whether or not specific documents -- such as yours -- should be referenced is a matter for editorial discretion and eventually WG consensus.  

I note that no one else has supported your claims, but others have said (e.g., [1]) that your work probably isn't appropriate for the intended audience (HTTP implementers and administrators).

{NB: you cite Willy, below)


Eliot Lear:

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)?


Tim Wicinsk (in ref to Eliot's post):

That sounds like a fine idea.  I'll be glad to go through those.

Alexy Melnikov:

Instead of starting your discussion with words like "plagiarism", you 
could have just asked for information to be clarified and a 
citation/acknowledgement added?


Willy Tarreau:

I've just checked the two documents you referenced. They seem to be very
well detailed but they are *scientific* research. ...

... Thus I think that Daniel's work completes quite well what you've
done in that it directly addresses people's concerns without requiring the
scientific background.

{and later, addressing the references I asked to be cited)

I think it would be nice that this is cited, ...

A document validated by several people and giving links for further
reading can help improve this situation.
That's why I think we should encourage him to
continue and give him all the reference he needs to have an undisputably
good reference doc.