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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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