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

[Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for the review Ben!

See comments inline.

> On 24 Oct 2018, at 1.08, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-05: No Objection
[...]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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?

This way to use Max-Age is aligned with the 5.03 code’s use of the option. For details, see my answer to Adam’s e-mail and clarifications in the PR:
https://github.com/core-wg/too-many-reqs/pull/5/files

Personally I would not object to define a new option for this use, but since 5.03 use of Max-Age is actually quite similar, re-using that seemed to make sense.

> §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?

Client should not make assumptions, e.g., that it can safely keep increasing the request rate until it receives 4.29, even if a server supports that.


Cheers,
Ari