[core] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-05: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, thanks for the work on this. I have a few comments, below:

I share Adam's concern about overloading Max-Age for this purpose. If anything,
the use in this document is specifying a minimum time interval, not a maximum
one. That is, this use not only overloads Max-Age, but does it in a
counter-intuitive way. Is there a reason not to define a new option?

§4: "A client MUST NOT rely on a server being able to send the 4.29
Response Code in an overload situation because an overloaded server
may not be able to reply at all to some requests."

Can you elaborate on the practical effect of that MUST NOT?