Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)

Post by kenko » Wed, Jul 10, 2013, 3:30 AM UTC

emmett wrote: post #26

drostie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At best that's a symptom. Cookies are for session management; the central problem with cookies is that people feel that servers will treat certain sessions as ephemeral, but instead those servers track these people for a long-term creepy analysis. One connected problem is that many sites require cookies in order to show public content . Public-content sessions should be entirely ephemeral, meaning that you shouldn't…

For advertisers this is a non-starter, because it prevents you from knowing the size of your audience. All sites would immediately begin requiring some form of "login" in your scenario in order to enable tracking again. If you can't track uniques, you can't sell ads, and that's pretty much all there is to it. So there's huge incentive to undermine any scheme to prevent unique user tracking. The solution is to somehow…

Post by nine_k » Wed, Jul 10, 2013, 6:47 AM UTC

kenko wrote: post #31

emmett wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For advertisers this is a non-starter, because it prevents you from knowing the size of your audience. All sites would immediately begin requiring some form of "login" in your scenario in order to enable tracking again. If you can't track uniques, you can't sell ads, and that's pretty much all there is to it. So there's huge incentive to undermine any scheme to prevent unique user tracking. The solution is to somehow…

"For advertisers this is a non-starter, because it prevents you from knowing the size of your audience. All sites would immediately begin requiring some form of "login" in your scenario in order to enable tracking again." If this is really a non-starter for advertisers, then mandating it will effectively ban advertising, non? Remember: your business model is not sacrosanct! Disruption!

Post by asm89 » Wed, Jul 10, 2013, 7:14 AM UTC

mbetter wrote: post #32

> Our general policy is to only add protocols if we can do a better job than the alternative, which is why we have not implemented HTTPS for instance.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 10, 2013, 7:50 AM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #22

Well transmitting text never seemed really very much interesting. http was nice because it was easy for software programmers to write apps that could work over http, because no binary protocol was involved: reading ASCII strings is never complicated. It was good for a growing industry. Now most browsers are open source, why can't the IETF work out a binary protocol ? Bittorrent is binary, and it's awesome and it's us…

Post by andyhmltn » Wed, Jul 10, 2013, 8:25 AM UTC

yahelc wrote: post #4

exceptione wrote: post #3

In my view, HTTP/2.0 should kill Cookies as a concept, and replace it with a session/identity facility, which makes it easier to do things right with HTTP/2.0 than with HTTP/1.1. count me in. Cookies are a huge waste of bandwidth and freaking annoying here in Europe as you cannot visit a site anymore without being warned you are about to receive yet even more cookies.

> Cookies are...freaking annoying here in Europe as you cannot visit a site anymore without being warned you are about to receive yet even more cookies. Seems like the blame for that lies not with cookies themselves, but with the EU's cookie law.