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

Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:49:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX0kUbWNXX57pQNU5bdogWAk7SfWt8JaNjY9PuNMOCOxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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

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