Subject: RE: [Simple] MSRP: Flow Control

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:42:19 -0500

Now I'm truly confused. First you propose sending 503
responses to quench unwanted messages. I point out
why I think this won't approach won't work as specified,
and, in a tone that would imply that you think you're
rebutting me, you quote Henning saying why your
solution -- sending quench responses -- is a bad idea.
("...[S]ending a status code after the message is half-way
across seems counter-productive").

Why are you undermining your own proposal?

Then, to add to the atmosphere of bewilderment, you restate
another one of my proposals ("If a sender tries to send more
messages/bytes than allowed, the relay can trivially enforce
the limit by dropping the TCP connection") as if it's a new
idea that somehow counters what I'm saying.

>Adam, clearly you misunderstood what I said. Please re-read, 
>and respond again when you've rested and thought about it.

I'm not certain I'm the one here who needs the rest. At least
I'm not arguing against myself.

/a
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple