Question about prioritization state management

laike9m <> Wed, 30 November 2016 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE841295E5 for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.396
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mQHEmqDU0f9K for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F1A01295F1 for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cC07k-0000qJ-0j for; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:20:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cC07Y-0007Xh-PX for; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:20:04 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cC07S-0005Q3-Ki for; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:19:59 +0000
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cC07S-0000Hq-2P for; 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 <>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:27:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:19:55 +0100
Message-Id: <>
X-Name-Md5: efe3dad792d606410c9cc49cedaffc94
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1cC07S-0005Q3-Ki 0520556f5f440d03370ee9542e607d70
Subject: Question about prioritization state management
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33033
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

I found the example in 5.3.4 Prioritization State Management <> 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.