Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

Mark Nottingham <> Wed, 17 August 2016 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E566A12D097 for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:48:33 -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 26bs8FGvNdZK for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:48:32 -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 0FFE712B057 for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bZsht-0001aF-IC for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 04:44:01 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 04:44:01 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bZshj-0001Y5-Ku for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 04:43:51 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bZshg-0007SQ-Kj for; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 04:43:50 +0000
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0756122E1F3; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:43:18 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:43:15 +1000
Cc:, HTTP Working Group <>, Patrick McManus <>, Daniel Stenberg <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Joe Touch <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.901, 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: 1bZshg-0007SQ-Kj 38447337ee476acaa81bc55ef62fe1a1
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32277
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>


> 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. 

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.

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

> 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". 


> 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