Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Mark,


On 8/16/2016 9:43 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Joe,
>
>> On 17 Aug 2016, at 2:21 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Mark, et al.,
>>
>> I posted a review of this document to both to TCPM and HTTP WGs.
>>
>> This update fails to address the issues I raised - notably that many of
>> the issues therein are known *and published*.
> I'm assuming you're talking about <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016JanMar/0314.html>.

Yes.
>
>
>> So first, can we discuss the issue of PLAGIARISM?
> Sure, let's discuss it. That's a very serious accusation. Are you saying that your material has been intentionally used without proper acknowledgement?

Yes.

> Personally, I doubt that. What may have happened is that the text brushes up against things that you've written about in the past, and you feel that you're not adequately acknowledged. 
Plagiarism requires only that the material was published elsewhere
before. Intent has no bearing.

In addition, I informed the author - and both lists - about this over 5
months ago. You might claim that the first two versions were issued out
of ignorance, but you cannot claim that of the update.

> 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.

> On the other hand, if it turns out that directing readers toward other documents (including yours) adds value, a reference might make sense.

Those docs explain the issues more correctly and in more detail. That
should add enough value.

The real question is whether this draft adds value to those - which are
*already published*.


>
>> Not only of two of my works, but of many others that pointed out most of
>> the information summarized in this doc.
>>
>> Second, the step of "adoption" needs to wait until there's something new
>> here that wasn't known 20 years ago and the issue of plagiarism is
>> addressed.
> Other people in the HTTP *and* TCP communities have commented that such a document would be very useful, whether or not it's something "new that wasn't known 20 years ago". 

We don't need to issue new documents for people who don't read old ones.

Joe


>
> Cheers,
>
>
>> Joe
>>
>> On 8/16/2016 7:02 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Hi TCPM,
>>>
>>> Just a quick note; Daniel and Tim have made an update to the TCP Tuning for HTTP draft:
>>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-httpbis-tcp
>>>
>>> We've had a Call for Adoption open for this draft for a while, and will likely adopt it soon. However, we'd like to get feedback from this community first -- both about the latest version of the input document, and to see if there's interest in helping out.
>>>
>>> You can give feedback on the HTTP WG mailing list <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>, or  by responding to this e-mail (Please leave the CC line; Patrick and I will try to summarise the feedback to the WG).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>> <Attached Message.eml><Attached Message.eml>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>