Here's the information you have provided, and some assumptions I have to make, in order to show you how to solve it (one way, at least), for which you should refer to my schematic underneath:
- Supply voltage \$V_1\$ is constant at 9V
- LED currents are \$I_3=1mA\$ and \$I_4=2mA\$
- LED forward voltages are \$V_{D1}=5V\$ and \$V_{D2} = 3.3V\$
- Potential at node A is \$V_A=+8.3V\$
Before I begin, I should point out that your reasoning for choosing \$V_A=+8.3V\$ is flawed. Since both LED+resistor pairs are in parallel, then \$V_A\$ should be greater than the largest LED voltage, which is 5V, not the sum of both LED voltages. If those LEDs were in series, then I would nearly agree with your reasoning; I would amend it to say that \$V_A\$ should be significantly greater than the sum of the individual LED voltages. Going forward, I'll stick with the constraint \$V_A=+8.3V\$, even though any value significantly greater than 5V, but less than V1 would be fine.
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
The first thing I notice is that since the potential at A is known, and fixed, I can find R3 and R4 easily. I need to apply Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) to each path individually. First, the path via R3 and D1:
$$ V_{D1} + V_{R3} = V_A $$
Ohm's law will reveal \$V_{R3}\$:
$$ V_{R3} = I_3 R_3 $$
Combine those, rearrange to make R3 the subject, and plug in known values:
$$
\begin{aligned}
V_{D1} + I_3R_3 &= V_A \\ \\
R_3 &= \frac{V_A - V_{D1}}{I_3} \\ \\
&= \frac{8.3V - 5V}{1mA} \\ \\
&= 3.3k\Omega \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
Do the same for the path containing D2. I'll skip some algebra, since it's identical except for variable names:
$$
\begin{aligned}
R_4 &= \frac{V_A - V_{D2}}{I_4} \\ \\
&= \frac{8.3V - 3.3V}{2mA} \\ \\
&= 2.5k\Omega \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
To find R1 and R2, I think that basic nodal analysis may be the simplest way, but don't overlook tools like Thevenin's theorem, which might simplify things.
I notice that currents in the two LED paths are well defined, \$I_3=1mA\$, \$I_4=2mA\$. This is convenient, because it permits me to easily calculate current \$I_0\$ emerging from the potential divider junction. Using Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL):
$$
\begin{aligned}
I_0 &= I_3 + I_4 \\ \\
&= 1mA + 2mA \\ \\
&= 3mA \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
Using KCL again, I can relate \$I_1\$ and \$I_2\$ to \$I_0\$:
$$
\begin{aligned}
I_1 &= I_2 + I_0 \\ \\
I_1 - I_2 &= I_0 \\ \\
&= 3mA \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
It's trivial to calculate the voltages across R1 and R2, since we know \$V_A\$. This is really just KVL again:
$$
\begin{aligned}
V_{R1} &= V_1 - V_A \\ \\
&= 9V - 8.3V \\ \\
&= 0.7V \\ \\
V_{R2} &= V_A - 0V \\ \\
&= 8.3V - 0V \\ \\
&= 8.3V \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
Ohm's law for R1 and R2:
$$
\begin{aligned}
I_1R_1 &= 0.7V \\ \\
I_2R_2 &= 8.3V \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
Remember from before that \$I_1 - I_2 = 3mA \$. We actually have three equations which I will reiterate here:
$$
\begin{aligned}
I_1 - I_2 &= 3mA \\ \\
I_1R_1 &= 0.7V \\ \\
I_2R_2 &= 8.3V \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
This is interesting, because we have three independent simultaneous equations, but four unknown quantities. This is math's way of telling us that there are an infinite number of solutions. We have to employ some reasoning to "guess" one of the values, to eliminate one of the unknown quantities. Then there will be a unique solution.
Experience tells me that R2 is redundant. Why would it be necessary to have any current at all through R2? I can plug in \$I_2=0\$ without breaking anything:
$$
\begin{aligned}
I_2R_2 &= 8.3V \\ \\
I_2 &= 0A \\ \\
0A \times R_2 &= 8.3V \\ \\
R_2 &= \frac{8.3V}{0A} \\ \\
&= \infty\Omega \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
We can remove R2 altogether, leaving only R1 to be calculated. The remaining equations are:
$$
\begin{aligned}
I_1 - I_2 &= 3mA \\ \\
I_1 - 0A &= 3mA \\ \\
I_1 &= 3mA \\ \\
I_1R_1 &= 0.7V \\ \\
R_1 &= \frac{0.7}{3mA} \\ \\
&= 233\Omega \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
That's one solution. Let's see if it works:
simulate this circuit
If you insist on using all the resistors, including R2, then you'll have to decide on a non-zero value for \$I_2\$. It would be silly to make it much larger than LED current of 3mA, since that's just a waste of energy in R2, but just for laughs, let's make it silly. Lets set \$I_2=100mA\$, and see what resistor values come out of the equations:
$$
\begin{aligned}
I_2 &= 100mA \\ \\
I_1 - I_2 &= 3mA \\ \\
I_1 - 100mA &= 3mA \\ \\
I_1 &= 3mA + 100mA \\ \\
I_1 &= 103mA \\ \\
I_1R_1 &= 0.7V \\ \\
R_1 &= \frac{0.7}{103mA} \\ \\
&= 6.8\Omega \\ \\
R_2 &= \frac{8.3V}{100mA} \\ \\
&= 83\Omega \\ \\
\end{aligned}
$$
simulate this circuit
This is a difficult question answer comprehensively, because the behaviour you expect from this circuit is not well defined. For example, the first question I aksed myself was "is the 9V source expected to change voltage ever?". Then I asked, if the supply voltage can change, is the goal to keep LED current constant?" If not, is there some relationship between supply voltage and LED current that you are trying to achieve?
If that 9V supply is never going to change, or is always close to 9V, give or take a bit, then nobody with any experience would use the design you have proposed, since those exact same conditions can be obtained with only two resistors:
simulate this circuit
With the goal being to choose resistances needed to obtain two known currents \$I_1\$ and \$I_2\$, the algebra for this scenario is way simpler than all that mess above, and no engineer would ever choose to do this the hard way.
If your goal is to obtain LED currents that remain constant, even as V1 changes, then you cannot use your design, or even the two-resistor solution, since such designs cannot achieve that behaviour. Then your question about finding R1, R2, R3 and R4 is moot, and you'll have to use a different approach.
If you expect V1 to change, but you require LED currents to change in some specific manner, in response to a changing V1, then the information you are missing is the exact algebraic relationships between \$V_1\$ and the two LED currents. Without having equations that describe those relationships, you can't incorporate them into the set of simultaneous KVL, KCL and Ohm's law equations, and you can't possibly derive a solution.
save and insert
... an editable circuit will be inserted in your post ... no grid lines \$\endgroup\$