Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update

That sounds like a fine idea.  I'll be glad to go through those.


On 8/17/16 12:26 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Perhaps we can agree that the reasonable course of action here is for
> Joe to (re)-recommend a compact set of citations to the authors, perhaps
> even in some easily consumable form to them (kramdown-2629 or XML)?
> Eliot
> On 8/17/16 5:28 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> Joe,
>> On 17/08/2016 16:08, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2016 11:42 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>>> On 17 Aug 2016, at 3:23 PM, Joe Touch <> wrote:
>>  [snip]
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Plagiarism isn't an issue limited to academic environments.
>>>>> Publication
>>>>> of a document on the web is still publication.
>>>> Sure. It also isn't a legal issue in this form (unless you're
>>>> asserting copyright?). Effectively, it's a cultural norm. Again, I
>>>> will point out that in the culture of the IETF, we historically have
>>>> not cited the complete provenance of every idea, both because it's
>>>> impractical and because it doesn't benefit the reader.
>>> Although that's true in the smallest cases, the IETF does have two
>>> concepts that support this norm: an author list and a set of references.
>>> Can you explain how it helps the reader to not cite two documents that
>>> are both squarely in the same area as this doc (interaction between HTTP
>>> and TCP and the impact of running many small connections closed at the
>>> client as for HTTP)?
>> Instead of starting your discussion with words like "plagiarism", you
>> could have just asked for information to be clarified and a
>> citation/acknowledgement added? With your current introduction you
>> pissed off lots of people.
>>>> As far as I know, the IETF does not have a stated position about
>>>> what you regard as PLAGIARISM. Hopefully we can get some clarity
>>>> about that from the ADs, as well as some definitive evidence of what
>>>> you're asserting.
>>> You can if you want, but my primary point here is to have this work
>>> corrected - and to stop the myth that "it doesn't matter" whether
>>> *reasonable* citations are included.
>> Noted.
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list

Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 17:00:40 UTC