Re: [alto] Comments on draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-01

[Laird Popkin <laird at pando.com>]

Regarding:

Req 8 recommends an action.  I suggest " An overloaded ALTO server receiving too many requests should be able to handle the problem e.g. it MAY silently discard excess requests"

LP: The only requirement (IMO) from the app side regarding ALTO availability is that if ALTO cannot respond to a request that it should do so in an easily identifiable way so that the app doesn't wait "forever" for a response that it's not going to get. (e.g. reply with a 'busy' message, rather than silently not responding):

- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
  mobile: 646/465-0570

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv at gmail.com>
To: alto at ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:03:49 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: [alto] Comments on draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-01

Hi,

I read the draft and have some comments on section 4.2.

 

.

 

Req 9 is suggested a solution that should be in other document

 

Req 10 I suggest that it should say that a client shall not overload the server, the current text is normative text.

 

Req 11 is normative text and not a requirement.

 

Req 12 the first part " An ALTO server, which is operating close to its capacity limit, SHOULD be able to inform clients about its impending overload situation" is the requirement the rest is normative text.

 

Thanks

Roni Even

---

_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto