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

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)

From: Benedikt Christoph Wolters <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:32:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGZNdJWPy6DCNd10iLctD0_Q9tgC99btNWL4bSutD=2B72KmXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
CC: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, <fenix@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, <ben@nostrum.com>, <alissa@cooperw.in>, <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2016-11-30 9:41 GMT+01:00 Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>:
> What happens if both stream A and B are blocked? Should my server endeavour to serve dependent streams in that case? I *think* the answer is yes because of the logic around having grouping nodes formed from idle streams, but I’m not 100% sure and would like clarification.

Section 5.3.4 Prioritization State Management states:
> Resources are shared between streams with the same parent stream, which means that if a stream in that set closes or becomes blocked, any spare capacity allocated to a stream is distributed to the immediate neighbors of the stream.

In my understanding in your example A and B are blocked, C and D are
immediate neighbors of A so according to this they would get the
resources of A.
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 11:33:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 November 2016 11:33:26 UTC