[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay

2010-08-11 13:32:01

On 8/11/2010 10:28 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
Many of the things you're going to want to do in that time will take
longer than that. There's a long tail, but I'd expect to see some
processing take a minute or more in rare cases.

I believe that, to be meaningful, the guidance is going to have to specify a number that balances between leaving enough time for useful analysis versus avoiding the vast majority of timeouts.

A specification that encourages retransmission is a Bad Thing. A specification that does not leave enough time for 'most' useful analysis is also not helpful. Note that 'most' is a statistical assessment and that ultimately this topic is an efficiency hack. Having some analysis be required to be deferred isn't wonderful, but it's better than having to defer all of it.

Taking your comment, I'll ask about a revision up to one minute for server analysis.

However the idea that every message submission across the net will require the sending side to hold for one minute, every time, bothers the heck out of me.


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>