Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

On 8 April 2014 18:20, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> 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.

That's what I would do when A is removed.  Though I'd note that A
should not be removed until it is either necessary, or the server is
willing to bet that it won't be referred to again.

A fully conservative approach toward retention would have nodes remain
until all sub-nodes are closed plus an extra round trip.

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 03:49:33 UTC