On 19/07/2010, at 23:27, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > I proposed the dedicated code because I figured we could bounce this > back when we see the same IP hammering us, without having to inspect the > actual request (which requires validating the CMS etc). However now that > I think about it a bit more, this would still require that we generate a > CMS for the response...
Indeed. > So to conclude: I think I would prefer an http status return in this > case to minimise server processing power. Maybe something similar to > validation failure in paragraph 3.2: HTTP 400 Bad Data There is an existing HTTP code for this: 503 Service Unavailable. Rob -- Robert Loomans email: [email protected] Senior Software Engineer, APNIC sip: [email protected] http://www.apnic.net/ phone: +61 7 3858 3100 _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
