W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: #131: Connection limits (proposal)

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:55:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4ADBFF6C.5070604@rowe-clan.net>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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.
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 05:56:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC