- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:41:50 -0700
- To: Chad Austin <caustin@gmail.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9 October 2014 11:05, Chad Austin <caustin@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. the server will keep the priority tree information for closed streams > "long enough" > 2. In the case of "(A1, A2, A3) -> 0; (B1, B2, B3) -> A1", if A1 completes > before A2, the server will apply any available resources to A2 and A3 before > any of B1, B2, or B3. > > Sounds like you're saying #1 is likely. Yep. > Can you confirm that #2 is also the behavior specified by the current draft? Not as specified. This would allocate any resources that might have been allocated to A1 to its descendants. We can't express a dependency on multiple resources, except by creating a linear chain: B2 -> B1 -> A2 -> A1 -> 0.
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 18:42:17 UTC