Re: [tcpm] TCP Tuning for HTTP - update


It sounds like the job of an author or a search engine (or both).

I've given you a place to start.


On 8/17/2016 10:00 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> That sounds like a fine idea.  I'll be glad to go through those.
> tim
> 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 17:17:33 UTC