Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871) from Cory Benfield on 2016-11-30 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2016)

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:05:26 +0000
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Cc: 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>
Message-Id: <24141783-A04A-42AD-9730-EB5C91A36516@lukasa.co.uk>

> On 30 Nov 2016, at 13:04, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that you do not need to distinguish between completed, idle and blocked states.
> 
> For a stream under either of the three states, the weight associated to the stream is distributed to the dependents.
> 
> That is what nghttp2 does and H2O does (except for the fact that it does not remember closed streams), and I this behavior is what is suggested by the spec.

My understanding of what Martin is suggesting is that that isn’t true: blocked streams do not distribute their weight to their dependants. However, that’s also what the Python Priority implementation does.

Cory

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 13:06:02 UTC