3 ms·
> 3 decades? 1.1 was released in 1997. Fair enough. Corrected. > Can you clearly list the bugs you claim HTTP/2 has? They seemed fairly well outlined in the
by josteink 8y ago
> 3 decades? 1.1 was released in 1997.
Fair enough. Corrected.
> Can you clearly list the bugs you claim HTTP/2 has?
They seemed fairly well outlined in the post I was replying to, no?
- profmonocle 8y agoThe only issue raised in the post you replied to was that TCP head-of-line blocking can be a bigger issue in HTTP/2. Claiming this makes the protocol "fundamentally broken" is a bit of a stretch. Plus, this wasn't "found after less than a year". It was a known drawback from the very beginning, when the protocol was still SPDY, and deemed an acceptable tradeoff.
- manigandham 8y agoThat is not a bug with HTTP/2. It is designed to be more efficient by using a single TCP connection, thereby magnifying any efficiency issues that TCP had all along. These issues are not only about HTTP but include the massively increased amount of devices, network types, security features, and general throughput over the years. Perhaps a new version of TCP could've been made, and that's a valid concern, but it's a slow moving standard that takes decades to alter. QUIC evolved faster on UDP so that's what we have. What strategy do you suggest for improving TCP faster than the current process?
- dagenix 8y agoI agree with what you have to say, but just want to respond to last second paragraph: QUIC basically is a new version of TCP. Yeah, it's based on UDP, but, that is just an implementation detail. If it weren't for various poorly behaved middleboxes, QUIC could just sit on top of IP like TCP does. But, it can't - so we hold our noses and put it on top of UDP and we end up with something that actually works.