Re: [core] 🔔 WGLC of draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-02

Jim Schaad <> Thu, 05 July 2018 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99F7130E3B for <>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 06:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id no8DeKNpZsDO for <>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 06:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 642DF130DC2 for <>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 06:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 06:12:33 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: 'Core' <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 06:15:36 -0700
Message-ID: <008c01d41462$44c26c90$ce4745b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQJt7qfOLfP6zXhio7jvHWj1sBbapqNM5AQA
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=94=94_WGLC_of_draft-ietf-core-too-many-r?= =?utf-8?q?eqs-02?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:15:50 -0000

The draft looks fine to me.

The server gets to have a definition of what it means for something to be "too similar" for a request and there is no way for this standard to be communicated to the client.  Thus the client's idea that similar means 'the same payload' may not be the servers idea of 'any payload'.  I don't know how to fix this so I expect it to be ignored.

The document appears to say that this response code is for dealing with a single client.  That is the traffic metric is calculated individually for each client.  The proxy for each client presumably being source IP, port pair.  If the traffic metric is calculated for everybody then it should return 5.03.  If that is not the intent then this needs to be made clearer.

Note that a client could get this as a response even on its first request if the path to the server goes through a proxy agent.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: core <> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 6:54 AM
> To: Core <>
> Subject: [core] 🔔 WGLC of draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-02
> Dear CoRE WG,
> during the London IETF, we said we want to quickly finish the spec of the
> response code 4.29 (too many requests).
> The author has now submitted a revised version dealing with the recent
> comments and believes it is ready for Working Group last call.
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> The WGLC will end in exactly 336 hours so we can discuss the outcome at the
> CoRE WG meeting
> Grüße, Carsten
> PS.: A bonus for the first one who finds the one malformed sentence I found
> during chair review:
> You’ll get some Finnish Salmiakki at the Montreal meeting.
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list