- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:10:31 +0200
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
mån 2009-07-20 klockan 18:08 +1200 skrev Adrien de Croy: > * a busy - try again later status (like SMTP 421) (actually this would > be exceedingly useful for rate limiting connections - a try again with a > retry-after header - maybe new status 309?). 503 + Retry-After exists already for this purpose and closely related situations. 3xx is inappropriate as it's not a redirect to a new resource. 4xx is inappropriate as the request as such (when isolated) is fine. 2xx is inappropriate as it's not a successful response. > * an advertisement for the number of connections a server will accept > from a client Yes. > * something else Not sure anything else is needed. > However I think these could risk over-complicating the issue for dubious > benefit. Are we even clear on what it is desired to limit? For normal pageloads with pipelining enabled 2 is a very reasonable limit. Without pipelining at least 4, maybe more. For other applications other requrements may exists. > I've seen this many many times. Even accessing an idle test server > (over GB LAN) via a proxy was hugely slowed down loading many images due > to the 2 connection limit in IE7. It makes sites slow, whether the > sites are overloaded or idle. Pipelining disabled? Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 08:11:14 UTC