Re: Question about prioritization state management

Benedikt Christoph Wolters <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de> Wed, 30 November 2016 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5813F129FE1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:38:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4I4PZvOPaBli for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38E9F129FE0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cC39x-0000tK-IG for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:34:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:34:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cC39x-0000tK-IG@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de>) id 1cC39r-0000qi-AW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:34:39 +0000
Received: from mx-out-1.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.186]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de>) id 1cC39k-0005lS-Gx for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:34:33 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,573,1473112800"; d="scan'208";a="562108858"
Received: from rwthex-s1-a.rwth-ad.de ([134.130.26.152]) by mx-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2016 12:34:09 +0100
Received: from mail-qt0-f182.google.com (209.85.216.182) by rwthex-s1-a.rwth-ad.de (2002:8682:1a98::8682:1a98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1236.3; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:34:09 +0100
Received: by mail-qt0-f182.google.com with SMTP id n6so184876759qtd.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:34:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC005bQKE4akZchYfbg5XyxApwVbRT/hGfZDgaVJI3SdRQL1uf6YtUz9onHDapBleiw6JL2o+s9hUf/uC9w==
X-Received: by 10.237.40.38 with SMTP id r35mr28745788qtd.0.1480505648061; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:34:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.145.233 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:33:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJutW=ckVn9+=GpW27KOHvQbiwDyhf-MWcmyHaUnRERnc2iR8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJutW=ckVn9+=GpW27KOHvQbiwDyhf-MWcmyHaUnRERnc2iR8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benedikt Christoph Wolters <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:33:37 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAGZNdJVvk=fYEg_eG99zyNHQX7aoW4vf70LyrG9T3UUFzHc7_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGZNdJVvk=fYEg_eG99zyNHQX7aoW4vf70LyrG9T3UUFzHc7_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: laike9m <laike9m@gmail.com>
CC: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: [209.85.216.182]
X-ClientProxiedBy: rwthex-w2-b.rwth-ad.de (2002:8682:1a9f::8682:1a9f) To rwthex-s1-a.rwth-ad.de (2002:8682:1a98::8682:1a98)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=134.130.5.186; envelope-from=benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de; helo=mx-out-1.rwth-aachen.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.899, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cC39k-0005lS-Gx e333d2aa1c5b7b1768605af0b6cca82d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question about prioritization state management
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAGZNdJVvk=fYEg_eG99zyNHQX7aoW4vf70LyrG9T3UUFzHc7_A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33037
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

2016-11-29 17:27 GMT+01:00 laike9m <laike9m@gmail.com>om>:
> It seems to me a bit contradictory, since A and B are neighbors with the
> same parent stream, then why doesn’t B share resources dedicated to A?

I think the example is correct. A and B are siblings [1], not
immediate neighbors [2].
Note there is an ongoing discussion about that topic [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighbourhood_(graph_theory)
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016OctDec/0601.html