IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Mon, 29 March 2021 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 6F5703A0884; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 23:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 xe628DUiPNNL; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 23:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 613A23A0887; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 23:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:4da5:a954:5ac7:bb36] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:4da5:a954:5ac7:bb36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D6F160031A; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:23:32 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1616999012; bh=4DkmFWm1EtVX/lTHT7TROKV2kzNYPkDElg4qh38l0yA=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=kWMNg+H4OT08dtw6x+T2EreoC2Zreo2JBJWdrcI2QaNn+tF6YHUP8ebFQeaGWLH5L Dgw/iJriBr0Y3lN0A3aJERULnDckUf2pL/pGB5U7lTJFnDnF7LDlq/Qg1ZvSphMMwC AT75xG01i7cytIuGUILXTLFaFej1z73l6MZzHu5I=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <AA5B441A-7147-433B-BCA4-3B601CEE8429@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_22C1F6D7-0364-4C3E-8116-9947BF1AC359"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:23:30 +0300
In-Reply-To: <92DFC0A5-9095-49BB-87EC-685A5B854983@strayalpha.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
References: <161666423177.6408.1029658445364068197@ietfa.amsl.com> <92DFC0A5-9095-49BB-87EC-685A5B854983@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-MailScanner-ID: 4D6F160031A.A26E1
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/VZ8ijV7D7Y4MMk6ZtnMmCLvSFiE>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:23:53 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-3-25, at 23:21, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Joe, you were the single author of RFC2140. Would you grant BCP78 rights in
>> RFC2140 to the IETF Trust?
> 
> I have been asked this before and declined. My position has not changed, so the boilerplate needs to remain.

sure. I just thought I'd ask.

>> The modern web is using a lot fewer parallel connections compared to the web at
>> the time RFC 2140 was written. So the example is slightly dated.
> 
> Can you clarify? All modern browsers are configured to allow 8-10 parallel connections, which is actually higher than when 2140 was written (it was half that).

With H2 and H3, all all Chrome-based browsers and Firefox use a default of one connection per server. With H1, the default of those browsers seems to be six. But H2/H3 are 3/4 of all traffic by some measures (e.g., https://radar.cloudflare.com/). So I stand by my argument.

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email