I wish instead of a protocol improvement that focused solely on network resources, the next version will also include improvements for users such as encryption by default and doing away with cookies.
HTTP/2 Is Done
21–30 of 144 posts
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#22I wish instead of a protocol improvement that focused solely on network resources, the next version will also include improvements for users such as encryption by default and doing away with cookies.
You can begin today to do away with cookies on your own sites and services. Start implementing richer clients and leveraging Open ID Connect and OAuth2.
Cookies solve real use case problems. Unless we all start building and experiencing and improving the alternatives, progress won't be made.
That said, good luck on getting rid of cookies all together.
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#23[placeholder for commentary about how HTTP/2 is a bad protocol because it's binary and everything could have been fixed in a text protocol follow by ad nauseum repetition of all the same old arguments]
The fact that there's so much disagreement and discontent surrounding this should concern everyone involved. Trade-offs are being made that may benefit some people and organizations, but these trade-offs are also causing significant problems for others. While there has always been some degree of disagreement regarding technological matters, I think we're really seeing a lot more of it these days, especially when it c…
"We're seeing any sort of competition, or even just dissent, being highly discouraged, suppressed, or even prevented wherever possible."
Could you please elaborate on this point?
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#24HTTP/2 is a bad protocol, that much is clear by now. Luckily most of us won't have to deal with it, because it will be deployed merely as an optimization, with a new generation of reverse-proxy servers, like H2O. https://github.com/h2o/h2o
Care to at least explain why you think it's a bad protocol?
It is not a bad protocol for what is in there, it is bad for what is not.
It seems like it was built for the big players to eek out 5% more performance. How about the average website? What is in there help standardize authentication? What is in there to help protect privacy?
In the end it looks more HTTP 1.2, with header compression being the only new feature. The rest of what makes up HTTP 2 is basically implementing a new transport layer protocol at the application level.
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#25I know I'm apparently not meant to be, but I'm genuinely keen to start using HTTP/2. If you've been following some of the things being done in HTML recently (rel=subresource, rel=dns-prefetch), I think it's starting to become a little obvious that for most people HTTP is the bottleneck. HTTP/2 seems to be a good, solid step forwards. If it's not perfect, well, it doesn't have to be; 2 isn't the last number.
[deleted]
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to at least explain why you think it's a bad protocol?
It is not a bad protocol for what is in there, it is bad for what is not. It seems like it was built for the big players to eek out 5% more performance. How about the average website? What is in there help standardize authentication? What is in there to help protect privacy? In the end it looks more HTTP 1.2, with header compression being the only new feature. The rest of what makes up HTTP 2 is basically implementin…
"Standardize authentication"?
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that there's so much disagreement and discontent surrounding this should concern everyone involved. Trade-offs are being made that may benefit some people and organizations, but these trade-offs are also causing significant problems for others. While there has always been some degree of disagreement regarding technological matters, I think we're really seeing a lot more of it these days, especially when it c…
"We're seeing any sort of competition, or even just dissent, being highly discouraged, suppressed, or even prevented wherever possible." Could you please elaborate on this point?
jgrahamc's comment that I replied to is a mild example of this. If people are repeatedly raising the same concerns whenever HTTP/2 is discussed, then there are clearly issues with it that aren't being sufficiently dealt with. Writing off their problems as merely being "all the same old arguments", and discouraging discussion of them, doesn't exactly help solve these problems.
Things tend to be particularly bad when it comes to systemd, though. It isn't unusual to see censorship occur, either in the form of unjustifiable downmodding, comment deletion, or even the banning of participants, depending on the venue. We also are seeing it become increasingly difficult for Debian users, for example, to opt out of using systemd, or to easily switch to an alternative init system.
Instead of people with different preferences or interests working together, or even working independently, we're more often seeing one group of people quench the ability of the competing groups to participate or to even have choice. When discussion is stifled, and choice is taken away, the outcome will likely never be positive.
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to at least explain why you think it's a bad protocol?
It is not a bad protocol for what is in there, it is bad for what is not. It seems like it was built for the big players to eek out 5% more performance. How about the average website? What is in there help standardize authentication? What is in there to help protect privacy? In the end it looks more HTTP 1.2, with header compression being the only new feature. The rest of what makes up HTTP 2 is basically implementin…
> help standardize authentication
> help protect privacy
I think this is sort of answered by the headline - "HTTP/2 is done".
If they had succumbed to the second-system effect and added every bell and whistle that every HTTP user would ever want, there would be an endless period of bikeshedding and it would be years before you could even call the spec "done".
They seem to have taken a more conservative approach - changing enough that HTTP 1.2 wasn't accurate, but also not going all-out and trying to define a post-Snowden quantum-computing-based KSTP (kitchen sink transport protocol).
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a bad protocol for what is in there, it is bad for what is not. It seems like it was built for the big players to eek out 5% more performance. How about the average website? What is in there help standardize authentication? What is in there to help protect privacy? In the end it looks more HTTP 1.2, with header compression being the only new feature. The rest of what makes up HTTP 2 is basically implementin…
"Standardize authentication"?
Well Basic Auth exists now, but it is unusable for most sites due to several well-documented shortcomings. Surely something could be done to improve upon it.
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#30[placeholder for commentary about how HTTP/2 is a bad protocol because it's binary and everything could have been fixed in a text protocol follow by ad nauseum repetition of all the same old arguments]
The fact that there's so much disagreement and discontent surrounding this should concern everyone involved. Trade-offs are being made that may benefit some people and organizations, but these trade-offs are also causing significant problems for others. While there has always been some degree of disagreement regarding technological matters, I think we're really seeing a lot more of it these days, especially when it c…
> While there has always been some degree of disagreement regarding technological matters, I think we're really seeing a lot more of it these days
I don't have any way to dispute this, but I don't think it's easy to provide evidence for it either. I feel that there may simply be more individuals involved in these kinds of discussions these days.
Obviously at some point you have to stop discussing something and start building it. That's not to say that discussion isn't important or shouldn't be encouraged (quite the contrary), but I find it very difficult to make generalizations about where the line should be drawn.