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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your response. Comments inline:

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 1:48 AM, Ari Keränen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for the review Ben!
> 
> See comments inline.
> 
> On 24 Oct 2018, at 1.08, Ben Campbell <[e-mail] <mailto:[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 <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