[dhcwg] Re: Actions after the IETF last call of draft-ietf-d hc-rfc8415bis-07

Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Basically I'm reluctang to change too much text, because I think they
    >> might just want to change it back.

    > Please yourself. I don't have a dog in this fight. :-) Feel free to
    > use/ignore my comments as you and your co-authors see fit. I'm not
    > bothered either way and won't be playing in your github

I appreciated your comments about readability.

    > I was approaching this from a different perspective: servers or relays
    > swamping the client with "too many" responses.

One request... one reply.
But, a malicious client could impersonate another client, and force many responses.

    > Perhaps the doc should
    > say something about that. Some text about dropping or ignoring requests
    > from annoying clients seems appropriate IMO. YMMV. And is it worth
    > considering the unlikely scenario where a single client request
    > provokes a server or relay into zillions of (spurious?) responses?

I think that there is some value in this.
It's (server) implementation advice.


--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEERK+9HEcJHTJ9UqTMlUzhVv38QpAFAmeg4cwACgkQlUzhVv38
QpCv+gf/UWXYXtQHZmSAx6/nrhuiJ+h2T6O5TpSQrmccR9gUSlLK+aYxck5/oBbF
iXANCWMiiOYrGiSmdTZG9xTVQc7Ljwl28XIWeoo1Uv2157AJ1Gepr6FBixxzPAvU
HKNTnehjaUDlt9gk2dLN2+eGHZfbwDRHhrxFUo+ZPS2AGlIdzA7YSubDZCTeugoq
clbC2L1joea5JdU60xflMtmsc7FGpLFhyzpPB26h144zZypkJdvrC7SONLL45GAW
L+hamaVg+TsCDHNM3Y3ZXN8zQMpzfaI5q1JLEsRM4Z9EzEDK3hnk6UG6/VGFWkHU
nqTUMlAB785+5ffYbAR/GrzNBCUijw==
=sV1s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----