[Standards] throttling

bear bear42 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 13 00:51:06 UTC 2011


On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 19:19, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 February 2011 00:09, Justin Karneges
> <justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday 12 February 2011 12:14:34 Matthew Wild wrote:
>>>
>
>>> 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!).
>>
>> jabberd1 penalizes for over a minute, which is the inspiration for this
>> discussion.  Newer servers are not nearly as aggressive.  But, from where I
>> sit, those design decisions seem arbitrary and there's nothing to say that
>> other servers couldn't adopt similar policies.
>>
>
> That's as may be, but I still lean towards the onus being on the
> server developers to ensure they don't create wacky situations like
> this. Still, as I said, I'm not against a spec.
>
> Maybe we just want a whole informational XEP on how clients/servers
> should detect broken streams correctly, and how to throttle with
> minimal chance of breaking things.

oh double +1 triple-like someone-give-me-a-heart-button

This would also form the basis for an conformity validator

>
> Regards,
> Matthew
>



-- 
Bear

bear at xmpp.org (email)
bear42 at gmail.com (xmpp, email)
bear at code-bear.com (xmpp, email)
http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog)

PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111  D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29



More information about the Standards mailing list