Re: Stream State and PRIORITY Frames

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Scott Mitchell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> Based on the RFC it seems like stream ids {3, 5, 7, 11} should be closed
> at step (6). Note that FF is not doing anything wrong here. It shouldn't
> have to care that the streams are CLOSED in this scenario (assuming these
> streams only ever have PRIORITY frames exchanged). It would be interesting
> to get a FF dev to comment on the expected stream state here just to be
> sure these streams will only be used for PRIORITY.
>

Yes, they are grouping nodes and serve no other purpose. I personally
believe they are in the idle state, but I know some people believe they are
closed with a priority attached. That doesn't seem to matter in practice.


> Either way maintaining/interpreting the priority is at the discretion of
> the server and these streams being closed does not impact the server's
> ability to do this (as discussed previously the RFC suggests retaining
> priority for closed streams).
>
>

So yes, and no. Certainly the server is in compliance in just ignoring
everything it knows about priority indications from the client. OTOH,
things can get very very screwed performance wise if dependencies are
disregarded and the state of priority is just determined by the local
weights on each stream. I've seen servers do this and create terrible
results.