- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:56:42 +1000
- To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- Cc: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20 September 2016 at 11:34, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote: > Therefore, a cautious server implementation would try to retain the > prioritization states of most-recently-used streams up to > MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS. By doing so, one can get rid of the risk to > receive a PRIORITY stream relative to the state of a closed stream, > since a client would never try to open more streams at once than > MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS. That's not going to work, since the stream limit is unidirectional, whereas priority applies to both. Keeping 2xMAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS would be closer to what you want (but again, not perfect).
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 01:57:12 UTC