Question about prioritization state management
laike9m <laike9m@gmail.com> Wed, 30 November 2016 08:24 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 9CE841295E5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 mQHEmqDU0f9K for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:24:36 -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 3F1A01295F1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cC07k-0000qJ-0j for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:20:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cC07k-0000qJ-0j@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 <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1cC07Y-0007Xh-PX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:20:04 +0000
Received: from raoul.w3.org ([128.30.52.128]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1cC07S-0005Q3-Ki for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:19:59 +0000
Received: from homard.platy.net ([80.67.176.7] helo=[192.168.1.34]) by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1cC07S-0000Hq-2P for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:19:58 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_636E6BC1-514D-4038-9CA1-EA153036AF13"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: laike9m <laike9m@gmail.com>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:27:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:19:55 +0100
Resent-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <CAJutW=ckVn9+=GpW27KOHvQbiwDyhf-MWcmyHaUnRERnc2iR8A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Name-Md5: efe3dad792d606410c9cc49cedaffc94
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.899, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cC07S-0005Q3-Ki 0520556f5f440d03370ee9542e607d70
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Question about prioritization state management
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJutW=ckVn9+=GpW27KOHvQbiwDyhf-MWcmyHaUnRERnc2iR8A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33033
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>
I found the example in 5.3.4 Prioritization State Management <http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html#priority-gc> very confusing. In the previous paragraph, it says Resources are shared between streams with the same parent stream, which means that if a stream in that set closes or becomes blocked, any spare capacity allocated to a stream is distributed to the immediate neighbors of the stream. And in the following example: Prior to the removal of stream A, if streams A and D are unable to proceed, then stream C receives all the resources dedicated to stream A. 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 know this question may seem dumb, but I do hope to get answers from the experts. Thank you.
- Question about prioritization state management laike9m
- Re: Question about prioritization state management Benedikt Christoph Wolters