- From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:34:38 -0800
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Cc: touch@isi.edu
Hi, all, This doc was noted on the TCPM list. See my observations below. Joe -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [tcpm] FW: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:25:07 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) <michael.scharf@nokia.com>, tcpm@ietf.org Extensions <tcpm@ietf.org> CC: touch@isi.edu On 3/2/2016 1:39 AM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) wrote: > I assume this could be of interest to the TCPM community. I have doubts: - it reads like a Linux manual page All Linux-specific references and commands would need to be moved to an appendix to be useful as an RFC. - this repeats (sometimes correctly, sometimes in error) existing advice J. Heidemann, K. Obraczka, J. Touch, “Modeling the Performance of HTTP Over Several Transport Protocols,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, V5, N5, Oct. 1997, pp.616-630. T. Faber, J. Touch, and W. Yue, “The TIME-WAIT state in TCP and Its Effect on Busy Servers,” in Proc. IEEE Infocom, 1999, pp. 1573-1583. - it has significant errors TIME-WAIT issues apply to servers, not clients. Nagle has been known to perform poorly for multibyte interactive traffic for a very long time, including not only web traffic but also multi-byte character or keyboard signals. Disabling slow-start after idle is safe only with pacing. Without pacing, the resulting traffic can generate a burst that was never experienced and result in both poor performance for the current connection and potential impact to competing traffic. (those are just a few) Overall, I think a man page might be useful, but this summary isn't useful for the IETF. Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:37 AM > To: 'Mark Nottingham'; HTTP WG > Cc: amankin@verisign.com; Daniel Stenberg > Subject: RE: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP > > The document refers to several TCPM RFCs with experimental status, e.g., in Section 3. That may have to be taken into account when heading towards BCP status. > > Michael > (TCPM co-chair) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 6:47 AM > To: HTTP WG > Cc: amankin@verisign.com; Daniel Stenberg > Subject: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP > > [ copying Alison as our Transport Tech Advisor ] > > Daniel has kindly started a document about how HTTP uses TCP, both for /1 and /2: > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-httpbis-tcp> > > We haven't explicitly discussed this at a meeting, but I have heard interest in this topic from a variety of folks. > > What do people think about adopting this with a target of Best Current Practice? > > Please comment on-list. > > Regards, > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 22:35:22 UTC