[Standards] Comment to rfc3921 pt 11.1 : handling of messages to ressources with identical priorities
stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Aug 24 18:11:09 UTC 2007
Robin Redeker wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 04:44:38PM -0600, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Robin Redeker wrote:
>>> Will that algorithm be a 100% solution?
>> There is no such thing. But it works really well in the real world,
>> with real customers, in real deployments. As well, please make sure
>> that you read the thread that started with JD's priority discussion
>> here: http://urltea.com/1av0; this is a problem more for client
>> developers and sysadmins configuring branding files than for end-users.
> This is a cornercase that must be handled in a sane way in servers IMO.
> That thread is interesting but doesn't solve the issue of two resources
> having the same priority. As far as I understood it was about priority
> dances in clients and such. You say sysadmins should configure it, are
> there configuration variables that enable 'sane' handling of same
> priority resources?
> And yes, I'm sure that heuristics and weird algorithms usually work
> in the real world out there, but if they don't users probably won't
> know what to do or what it could be.
> I actually mostly care about sane and _clear_ and simple semantics for
> handling cornercases. It clearly defined what users, developers and
> admins can expect in such cases.
This feels like an implementation detail to me. At the least, I would
not want to say that if two resources have the same priority then the
server MUST deliver to both resources, because that closes the door to
more intelligent routing based on advanced knowledge that the server may
have from user-configured routing rules or the like.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards