On 2/11/11 3:04 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 11 February 2011 21:41, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> 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 > all.
WFM! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
