W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:35:37 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXYTi0uv=Dm7zPrA=oPam+Zyka-jujFT2bU8GvqvT5JPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 30 November 2016 at 19:41, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> wrote:
> What happens if both stream A and B are blocked? Should my server endeavour to serve dependent streams in that case?

I guess so.  You don't want to completely stall out.  Obviously, if A
and B have a parent with siblings that aren't blocked, then you
continue there, but if everything is stalled, then I guess it's OK to
make progress on any stream.

You could probably devise some sort of scheme where you pick the
stream using some algorithm or other - maybe based on some best-fit
criteria.  But I'd say that it doesn't matter at that point: if we
assume that all streams that aren't blocked depend on blocked streams,
then none of them will be useful to the other side until those blocked
streams finish.  All you are doing is avoiding having a completely
wasted connection.
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 09:36:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 November 2016 09:36:17 UTC