- From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:44:31 +0000
- To: Benedikt Christoph Wolters <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de>
- Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, 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 Nov 2016, at 13:34, Benedikt Christoph Wolters <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > > 2016-11-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>: >> blocked streams do not distribute their weight to their dependants > > Blocked streams do, if you apply the 'immediate neighbors' definition > in a graph-theoretical sense. > Note that there is a difference between neighbors and siblings. > So with this in mind, I think the example under subject of this errata > is fine as it was before. Generally speaking I agree with you and Kazuho, as we can see based on the way I implemented the priority mechanic in code. ;) However, Martin edited the spec and proposed the erratum, so his understanding of the specification does carry a decent chunk of weight. That’s why I asked implementers to chime in: right now we appear to have Martin on one side, and three implementations on the other. For now I’m mostly interested to see if Martin (or anyone else who agrees with Martin) can chime in on that position. Cory
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 13:45:06 UTC