Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Joe Touch <> Wed, 17 August 2016 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC3312D76A for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hVNOFdgIhgvP for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:28:29 -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 6E0E7126579 for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bZtKk-0007vR-2q for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 05:24:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 05:24:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bZtKe-0007ua-2D for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 05:24:04 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bZtKc-00013w-K6 for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 05:24:03 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u7H5N4Pv005787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <>
References: <> <> <>
Cc:, HTTP Working Group <>, Patrick McManus <>, Daniel Stenberg <>
From: Joe Touch <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:23:01 -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: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Received-SPF: none client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.274, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1bZtKc-00013w-K6 8b569333c3e686f7388eeb7893fec4b9
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32278
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Hi, Mark,

On 8/16/2016 9:43 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Joe,
>> On 17 Aug 2016, at 2:21 PM, Joe Touch <> 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 <>.

>> 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?


> 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.


> 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:
>>> 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 <>, 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>> <Attached Message.eml><Attached Message.eml>
> --
> Mark Nottingham