[core] AD review of draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-04

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 16 August 2018 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C803130E8B for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZfsFYxwhYS7Q for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F277F130E81 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1534431171; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=Ild7fxvlp4sAthm7t8oouyk6ZuqsI1LSCNK/Rx5O+yk=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=KhDqdJPG9+8tmJ584vDbE2I/BL8Ep+q4smMqzxquaPNGj5lQCvGrpiC5ekyU4z2P6ANYO7 e1+QIDDCXdnCOAM/sVU9HSrofGLAvb10vnqd6Agc7ZcCobBqf/oCKb3ceste2el5GXj/EA lk5xPYzToiqoL/eKmMefU5KDhOF6n6M=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <W3WPwgAMFp0U@statler.isode.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:52:50 +0100
To: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <3b397c15-d016-a281-3b0a-3b956a982a80@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:52:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/REBUOEXcaYAtqVwbmCwKN-Na_PM>
Subject: [core] AD review of draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-04
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:52:53 -0000

Hi,

This is a straightforward document, as it tracks HTTP functionality 
defined in RFC 6585.

I have one main question about the document: when comparing this 
document with its HTTP counterpart, the HTTP version is using the 
Retry-After header field, while this document is reusing the Max-Age 
option. (HTTP has both Retry-After and Age header fields)

RFC 7252 defines Max-Age as follows:

5.10.5.  Max-Age

    The Max-Age Option indicates the maximum time a response may be
    cached before it is considered not fresh (see Section 5.6.1).

    The option value is an integer number of seconds between 0 and
    2**32-1 inclusive (about 136.1 years).  A default value of 60 seconds
    is assumed in the absence of the option in a response.

    The value is intended to be current at the time of transmission.
    Servers that provide resources with strict tolerances on the value of
    Max-Age SHOULD update the value before each retransmission. (See
    also Section 5.7.1.)

So my question is: why is it Ok to reuse Max-Age option and not define a 
new one, which is closer to the desired semantics? If this was already 
discussed on the mailing list, please kindly point me to the relevant 
thread(s).

Thank you,

Alexey