Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Default polling wait time #86

Closed
jricher opened this issue Nov 13, 2020 · 5 comments · Fixed by #388
Closed

Default polling wait time #86

jricher opened this issue Nov 13, 2020 · 5 comments · Fixed by #388
Assignees

Comments

@jricher
Copy link
Collaborator

jricher commented Nov 13, 2020

§5 Continuing a Grant Request: Editor's note:

What's a reasonable amount of time to wait by default so as not to DOS the server if the field is missing?

@fimbault
Copy link
Collaborator

Might have to broaden the perspective and provide more general guidance on how to avoid/limit DDoS

@jricher
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jricher commented Nov 20, 2020

I think we need general considerations as well, but this is a specific case where a naive implementation could accidentally DoS the system by polling too quickly.

@fimbault
Copy link
Collaborator

yes. Then it's simple, anything around the minute should work.

@jricher
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jricher commented Oct 12, 2021

Discussed in security considerations https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-gnap-core-protocol-07.html#name-denial-of-service-dos-throu

However, still no normative requirement in the polling section so this issue is staying open until that's in.

@jricher jricher self-assigned this Jan 31, 2022
@jricher
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jricher commented Feb 9, 2022

Need to add this to the interaction response section. I suggest "SHOULD NOT be less than five seconds" and "omission MUST NOT be treated as zero".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants