mwild1 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 12 20:14:34 UTC 2011
On 12 February 2011 19:56, Rene Treffer <treffer+xmpp at measite.de> wrote:
> On 02/11/2011 11:40 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
>> On Friday 11 February 2011 14:04:59 Matthew Wild wrote:
>>> 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).
>> The trouble is that throttling and keepalive pings don't play well together.
>> It is easy to imagine a client today that uses XEP-0199 pings to the server
>> every minute, but then gets throttled by the server for over a minute. The
>> result is that sending too fast means you get disconnected. This is pretty
>> terrible if there's no way to know what counts as "too fast".
> This looks suspicious. If a server drops / delays pings I'd say it's a
> server bug, not a client not implementing a XEP. You should seriously
> think about handling pings differently if you feel like dropping them.
A server can choose to spend CPU time and RAM processing stanzas from
the client, or it can choose to ignore that client for a while. If the
client is flooding the server with stanzas, it only seems right it
should be throttled, no? If it's being throttled, we have no way of
knowing if a ping is in the socket buffer unless we spend CPU time
I'm not convinced that we need a solution for this (I'm not sure if in
the real world, a server would actually stop reading from a client for
60s or more). However if consensus is that this is something we need
to fix, I think Justin's on the right track and I wouldn't oppose
standardising "whacks" (at last!).
More information about the Standards