Re: [Standards] throttling
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). I think this is not enough. Simply stop reading does not work if you want to throttle only certain types of stanzas. Also, what if MUC component wants to throttle one account? Artur -- Artur Hefczyc http://www.tigase.org/ http://artur.hefczyc.net/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [Standards] throttling
On Friday 11 February 2011 17:27:09 Matthew Wild wrote: On 11 February 2011 22:40, Justin Karneges 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. I'm not sure there's any reason the client should have multiple pings of any kind (XEP-0199 or r from XEP-0198) in flight at the same time. Pings are used for connection loss detection. You don't need multiple pings concurrently, you just need one that times out. My point is that some clients may consider the connection gone if the server does not reply to a XEP-0199 ping within 1 minute. -Justin
