Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)

[Cory Benfield <[e-mail]>]

> On 30 Nov 2016, at 12:42, Cory Benfield <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 30 Nov 2016, at 11:32, Benedikt Christoph Wolters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 2016-11-30 9:41 GMT+01:00 Cory Benfield <[e-mail]>:
>>> What happens if both stream A and B are blocked? Should my server endeavour to serve dependent streams in that case? I *think* the answer is yes because of the logic around having grouping nodes formed from idle streams, but I’m not 100% sure and would like clarification.
>> 
>> Section 5.3.4 Prioritization State Management states:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> In my understanding in your example A and B are blocked, C and D are
>> immediate neighbors of A so according to this they would get the
>> resources of A.
> 
> No, they aren’t immediate neighbours, they are immediate *children*. This is exactly the core question.

Oh, I apologise, I hadn’t realised that “neighbours” might be being applied in terms of its graph-theoretical definition. That’s an interesting point.