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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 October 2018 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 E3FF2130E3D; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jBCniVxnqIZy; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43F46129619; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.27] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9OHbJEG039109 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:37:20 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.27]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <54D94C5C-F815-496B-B069-0887DF236B9A@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5C9427A9-9A8A-4EFD-BC17-5C6CB74155AA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:37:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <BA369CA3-07FC-4F06-A84E-57BF4AE8D8E6@ericsson.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Ari_Ker=C3=A4nen?= <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
References: <154033246253.31224.15896855788700700234.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BA369CA3-07FC-4F06-A84E-57BF4AE8D8E6@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/qJtGdlPvUTfR4DRzAsdhoBgMwuo>
Subject: Re: [core] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:37:28 -0000

Thanks for your response. Comments inline:

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 1:48 AM, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>; wrote:
> 
> Thank you for the review Ben!
> 
> See comments inline.
> 
> On 24 Oct 2018, at 1.08, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com <mailto:ben@nostrum.com>> 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 <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.

I will defer to the results the discussion resulting from Adam’s comment.

> 
>> §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.

That seems kind of vague for a normative MUST NOT. How did clients pace requests prior to this? Are we asking them to do something different