IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [alto] Second round of comments on Re: WGLC on ALTO reqs 10, not 08

Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-alto@skiesel.de> Tue, 05 July 2011 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sebi@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4B611E80B2 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLB7U058OrPt for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de (gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de [188.246.4.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA1311E80B0 for <alto@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sebi by gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <sebi@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>) id 1Qe6WF-0001TX-U9; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:22:31 +0200
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:22:31 +0200
From: Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-alto@skiesel.de>
To: Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20110705142231.GA28862@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F01CECD057@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <CA38312E.497D9%rpenno@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA38312E.497D9%rpenno@juniper.net>
Accept-Languages: en, de
Organization: my personal mail account
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [alto] Second round of comments on Re: WGLC on ALTO reqs 10, not 08
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:22:37 -0000

Reinaldo,

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 06:10:38AM -0400, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
> Is is possible to provide clear use cases for requiring throttling in the
> protocol? This requirement came from
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-02 and was carried over to
> the WG document.

Having a P2P swarm of an unknown swarm size sending queries at an
unspecified rate to one focal point (i.e., the more or less centralized
ALTO server) sounded dangerous at that time.

I think the word "overload (situation|control|handling|relief|...)" is
so important that must be mentioned as one requirement and not just
considered to be one special case of error handling. On the other hand,
I am not sure whether we should mandate (MUST) mechanisms that are more
sophisticated than what http provides.

Thanks,
Sebastian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email