Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0145012D593 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 TC4a6R62B3Of for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 667A612B041 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:49:33 -0700 (PDT) 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 In-Reply-To: <7a36e025-4882-4f8b-7a83-9fdcd990a971@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:49:21 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: 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> <27b58b64-48cd-39af-78b3-ef583c585fa6@isi.edu> <20160818053837.GC16773@1wt.eu> <7a36e025-4882-4f8b-7a83-9fdcd990a971@isi.edu> To: Joe Touch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Matthew Kerwin , Daniel Stenberg , Patrick McManus , Willy Tarreau , HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 03:49:36 -0000 > On 19 Aug 2016, at 1:07 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >=20 > I do think that this doc needs to figure out whom it is speaking to, = what advice they actually need, etc. >=20 > 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?=20 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/