stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Feb 11 22:08:34 UTC 2011
On 2/11/11 3:04 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 11 February 2011 21:41, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> In Brussels we discussed the throttling feature of XEP-0198. It seems
>> that no one has implemented it, and it's not clear to me if we need it.
>> The proposal was to move it from XEP-0198 to a new XEP, but if we don't
>> think it's necessary then we can simply remove it.
>> What do people think?
>> 1. Throttling is beautiful, but let's put it in a separate spec.
>> 2. Who needs throttling? Let it die!
> My opinion on this is that we don't need application-layer throttling
> mechanisms. If a server wants to punish a peer, it can simply stop
> reading from the connection for a while. The peer doesn't have to know
> about this (such a notification MAY be useful for UI purposes, but I
> personally doubt it).
> Also the mechanism currently in 0198 is very simplistic, and assumes
> the throttling is done based on the number of unhandled stanzas. A
> more sensible throttling mechanism would instead take into account the
> size of the stanzas instead.
> In practice throttling/karma algorithms are typically proprietary to
> each server/service, and I don't see a reason they ought to be
> standardized or indeed have any interaction with the protocol flow at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards