IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 19 August 2016 03:54 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 0EB0212D5FC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X7fAslcEzmjI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:54:26 -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 BCF4F12D5F7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1baaon-0007bE-UF for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 03:50:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 03:50:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1baaon-0007bE-UF@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1baaof-0005yW-7Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 03:49:57 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1baaod-0007FY-Gg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 03:49:56 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98DD022E259; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:49:24 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <7a36e025-4882-4f8b-7a83-9fdcd990a971@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:49:21 +1000
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BFE4FC25-CCCA-4390-AADD-BCDBFE798790@mnot.net>
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>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.965, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1baaod-0007FY-Gg f555b9e00b0c86c2759aa61352b5484a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BFE4FC25-CCCA-4390-AADD-BCDBFE798790@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32324
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>

> 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.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email