Just to be the stick in the mud for a moment... On 8/19/16 5:49 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 19 Aug 2016, at 1:07 AM, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> wrote: >> >> I do think that this doc needs to figure out whom it is speaking to, what advice they actually need, etc. >> >> 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? > > 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. > > If there are very specific settings for Linux and they are well vetted, I see no reason not to continue to include them in an appendix, as they are now. Cheat sheets are nice, and there is nothing wrong with a cheat sheet being in an RFC (and I wouoldn't mind a few being RFCs). Eliot
Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 16:52:41 UTC