IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: connection limits, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 30 October 2013 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820E011E81C3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.072
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.473, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9vesg2mwhygZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D3F21F9DD5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.127.91]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M9wrU-1VUruP3GjQ-00B0pc for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:51:01 +0100
Message-ID: <5270C871.2020403@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:50:57 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: connection limits, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20131026225145.0bee7bb8@elandnews.com> <526FDC52.3030808@gmx.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20131030011734.0ce8d178@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131030011734.0ce8d178@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:zgPF9liGBG+HYUnHZX7QxMhvtUQILzpdSxNqIOoMA/6TdYkfQ7r 2MY4rQjdxedpZxyqSB3TpNqmN7umg7HOzvdRGczPeGbqlWv8Vxvo014SA/UPx4Vp3l+fYiv J0XURwJGI7ma8EcvD93fXpYV/2hWuTXDEcXU7XrbPZTzjxMxix8ojE2Ip3SYPHbA11Mr2W9 cslB6Ad1nND7XdhLero7Q==
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:51:14 -0000

On 2013-10-30 09:31, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> At 09:03 29-10-2013, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I have trouble parsing this comment. Do you see an issue here?
>
> I read the text again (Section 6.4).  It is difficult to say what is
> deemed abusive.  You could get around that with, for example:
>
>    A client SHOULD limit the number of simultaneous open connections
>    that it maintains to a given server as each connection consumes
>    server resources.
>
> Please note that I used some text from the third paragraph of that section.

Well, there are more reasons for limiting the connection; that's why we 
have a separate paragraph about it. Just moving one of them up here 
doesn't look like an improvement to me.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email