- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:34:17 -0700
- To: Chad Austin <caustin@gmail.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 6 October 2014 22:48, Chad Austin <caustin@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you suggesting that either the client, server, or both keep it around? > Does it matter if it's half closed? Well, a client that knows it's not going to use a stream as a basis for prioritization can discard the state immediately. A server doesn't have that opportunity, so it has to use some heuristics to determine what to keep and what to delete. The point is that prioritization state isn't strictly tied to stream state. If stream 7 depends - or could depend - on stream 5, stream 5 might be closed at the server when initial or updated priority information for stream 7 arrives. If the server cares about respecting prioritization for stream 7, it had best find a way to keep stream 5 in its priority graph somehow.
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 20:34:45 UTC