Re: #131: Connection limits (proposal)

Adrien de Croy wrote:
> 
>> This does not address my specific concern, which is to beat into the implementors
>> heads not to aggressively retry parallel connections where none will be permitted;
>>
> Do we therefore need some wording on how a client should detect such
> cases, and respond?  E.g. since there's no specific status code for a
> rejection based on number of concurrent connections, it would at best be
> an assumption that this is occuring.   I agree hammering away would be
> problematic.

The larger issue is that server implementors (rightfully) do proceed to blacklist the
relevant IP addresses as abusive, whether at the firewall/load balancer or http server
demarcation.  My comment was ment to illustrate that this behavior is correct, and
that the client behavior is invalid.

We can't implement a server response code to a dropped/refused connection; it is up
to the client to determine that a second/third/fourty-fifth connection is unwelcome
and stay at level or back off from consuming excessive services.