W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:20:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_iscg3EDhX0vmMCqFxWPHoz6pLpTe1TAA5kz+3=-tPtmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>
>
> The one dependency tree is easily collapsed to multiple trees in usual
> situation. For example, if 5 streams depend on stream A, and A is closed,
> those 5 streams become root for each subtree. And changing weight of them
> requires 5 priority frames.
>
One way to consider this: stream A, as the root of the its dependency tree,
had a weighted edge from stream 0 (this is equivalent to saying it was in a
group with some weight). When A closes, it's 5 dependents each now become
roots of their own subtrees, so each has a edge from stream 0. The question
posed is on stream closure, what should those weights be? If the weight of
the edge to A is distributed to the dependents in proportion to their
weights on A, no changing of weights is required and we maintain
equivalence with the draft-11 proposal.
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 01:21:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC