7 ms·

“Today this changes. We've found that IETF QUIC significantly outperforms HTTP over TLS 1.3 over TCP. In particular, Google search latency decreases by over 2%.

“Today this changes. We've found that IETF QUIC significantly outperforms HTTP over TLS 1.3 over TCP. In particular, Google search latency decreases by over 2%. YouTube rebuffer time decreased by over 9%, while client throughput increased by over 3% on desktop and over 7% on mobile.“ This is the most sickening sentence for me. The myopic internal focus. ‘Look we’ve made our new thing a standard and look it makes our products run faster’. This is just blatant exploitation that’s occurring as there is too much centralised ownership. In my opinion this is predatory behaviour packaged up as open source good for all.

dheera 6y ago
Yep, because we've built an economy based on idiotic fiduciary duty instead of duty to technologically advance the civilization. Myopic focus is exactly what the system rewards.
- aaronblohowiak 6y ago
  What utility function would you propose?
  - dheera 6y ago
    I don't have a well-defined solution, but I think the notion of companies selling shares to people in armchairs who neither necessarily use nor feel the side effects of the product is an issue. To a great degree I don't believe in 100% free market valuation of companies. Rather, I think the people most affected by the company (positively or negatively) should have the biggest say in its value. There also needs to be some adjustment to that valuation based on greater good delivered by the company. If they killed off a bunch of smaller businesses, that's a negative. If they emitted a bunch of carbon, that's a negative. If they caused injuries or deaths, that's a negative. If they contributed to open source products that enabled other companies to exist, that's a positive. Carbon taxes are one step at capturing one very small aspect of this "greater good" factor, but there need to be other adjustments as well. Another vague idea I've had is a hypothetical economic system in which the government doesn't print money (or isn't the only one printing money) but rather money is brought to existence by certain good deeds. Money can also be traded for goods and services, of course, in addition. So while you could make money by selling food or selling phones, you could also literally print your own money (translate: government hands it to you, in a controlled fashion) by sucking carbon out of the environment and proving that you did that to claim your money.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      > ...but I think the notion of companies selling shares to people in armchairs who neither necessarily use nor feel the side effects of the product is an issue. Their function is to raise money, whether they use the product or not (you don’t invest in something unless you believe it will provide value to some group of people) they’ve done their job and the company can continue to advance and adapt due to the capital. Further if you set what a company can be worth you’ve limited their resources and limited their innovation as a result. You’ve also turned human labor into currency in an attempt to get rid of currency. You cannot get rid of the concept of money. Without it you must trade resources (like labor), which history has shown is a very bad idea. The idea of a government being able to print money is a very deliberate feature, not a bug. I cannot do this justice, but read up on why we have money in the first place.
namesbc 6y ago
It is improving performance for EVERYONE. They just published the stats for their own stack so people can compare.
- krzyk 6y ago
  Increases performance by 3%, and complicates HTTP by 100%. I'm not sure I would like that. I would understand if it was 2x performance gain or at least 50%, but a mere 3%?
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    This is exactly why it's important that they publish their figures - so you can make a decision if it's works for you after weighing the tradeoffs. For high-traffic properties (Google, CDNs, Netflix), 3% can easily translate to millions of dollars saved - they could hire an entire team just to deal with the HTTP complications.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
    3% of HTTP traffic is a lot.
    - aruggirello 6y ago
      Web page weight has increased 300% on average in the last decade only.
    - swiley 6y ago
      Most of it is garbage that doesn't need to be there and is shoved in people's faces because it makes other people money/power. Ex: Why does clicking on a location link in google search load a big slow SPA to display a list of "cards" instead of just having a maps/web link in the search results?
      - GrantZvolsky 6y ago
        I thought it's because Google isn't allowed to promote Google Maps in its search results, but a cursory search didn't yield any evidence. Presumably if Search did link to Google Maps, other geographic information systems would have to be represented, just like various streaming platforms are represented in the video tab.
Animats 6y ago
All that effort to get a tiny improvement. The real motivation is probably to merge ads into the same stream as the content, so they can't be blocked by anything outside the browser.
- rektide 6y ago
  this is such uneducated mean ness. real engineers from all over care about improving http a lot. you throw random conspiracy grade conjecture in, throw this uneducated disrespectful shade why? how much effort have you made to understand the improvements? you show no recognition that the concensus-based ietf working groups are in agreement that this is a worthy & good enhancement to http3. please do not degrade that work so coursely & with such empty hot air. be civil.
  - Matheus28 6y ago
    I don't see how what he said is offensive or uncivil at all
  - martin_a 6y ago
    Nevertheless we should all be as clear as possible about Googles' motivation for pushing any new technology: Better data collection, more/better/fine-tuned ads.
  - divbzero 6y ago
    I don’t think GP’s speculation is anywhere close to “random conspiracy grade” stuff. It’s predictable and plausible enough of a motive to be mentioned elsewhere in this thread, e.g. this top-level comment [1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24711247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24711247
  - otoburb 6y ago
    >>how much effort have you made to understand the improvements? you show no recognition that the concensus-based ietf working groups are in agreement that this is a worthy & good enhancement to http3. Most network stacks in major operating systems enable Nagle's algorithm[1] which was designed in the mid 80's to improve the efficiency of TCP/IP networks. John Nagle, the parent you're responding to, likely understands the HTTP/3 improvements at a level beyond what most of us can comprehend given his deep experience in this area[2]. As the author of two foundational RFCs (RFC896[3] and RFC970[4]), I think the parent also has a fairly good recognition of and experience working with IETF working groups. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagle%27s_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagle%27s_algorithm [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381957 [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc896 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc896 [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc970 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc970
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
"The myopic internal focus." When "everyone" uses your software/websites, you can get away with this, much like Microsoft did back in the day. Internal Windows programs ran faster and seemed more stable than third party software written to run on Windows. It generally offered better "UX", to use today's lingo. The thing that is totally ignored by the myopic focus is the value of not being part of the Borg. Putting small speed differences aside, that value is not insubstantial, though the Google communications department is not responsible for keeping users informed about anything more than the value of Google. The fastest internet would be one without ads (not to mention the other benefits). Google will not inform anyone about that. It is not included in any tests.
- majewsky 6y ago
  > The fastest internet would be one without ads I don't disagree with your sentiment. However, their biggest gains in terms of percentage points (as discussed in the article) are for YouTube. And YouTube wouldn't be significantly faster without ads in the way that browsing primarily textual websites is faster without ads. Getting buffering times down is actually a substantial improvement here esp. on flaky connections. (Though the article doesn't make it clear whether flaky connections specifically benefit from QUIC.)
  - voixdelaraison 6y ago
    Waiting for pre-roll ads on YouTube certainly slows down the viewing experience. I do not use the YouTube JavaScript player. I download the video using a custom script and an HTTP client like tnftp and watch offline. Google is suggesting that users use their browser, their website and their internal player to view someone else's video file, so Google can serve ads, do tracking and collect analytics. The testing is not something generic like downloading a file from a server; instead, it uses Google protocol, Google browser, Google website, Google player and is announced on Google blog. All to show it will benefit everyone, of course.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  Ironically, googles internal deployment system is called Borg.
rektide 6y ago
> In my opinion this is predatory behaviour packaged up as open source good for all. you appear to have made no attempt to understand or grasp what or why of quic & http3. many ietf engineers from all corners have worked on this because they believe to be an improvement. this tackles very real head of line blocking problems & introduces a much more forward & fast security model. quit your cheap slander please. your casual, uninvested vitriolic outburst is disgusting. show some manners. you immediately jumped to the nasty gross conclusion you wanted to based off some engineers citing improved performance, threw slander at the attempt without even a quick look at how or why engineers sought these improvements. this behavior is sickeningly anti-social, & nothing more than a projection of your warped world view. please attempt to surface something even somewhat copied to truth when you go about shooting off.
- dang 6y ago
  Breaking the site guidelines this badly is easily a bannable offense on HN. Worse, we already asked you a few weeks ago not to do it anymore: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24512910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24512910. I'm going to cut you some slack because it looks like your other comments since then have been good, but if you do it again we are going to have to ban you, so please review the rules and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
zmj 6y ago
People argue both sides of this. If Google implements a new protocol on their servers and their clients without standardizing it, they're end-running the standards process or embrace-extend-extinguishing the open internet. If they do standardize it and then deploy the standard implementation, they're.. I don't even know, making billions of page loads faster and that's bad because they're Google? What's the right way for Google to improve their internet-facing services at a protocol level?
- KyeRussell 6y ago
  I imagine that a prerequisite is to hire every person that'd complain about this stuff on Hacker News, so that they'd be on Google's team.
- millstone 6y ago
  The underlying concern is that Google is in a position to dictate. They control most phones and most browsers and the most popular websites. Any standardization is pro forma, because what matters is what Chrome/Android/google.com does, and not what the standard says. An emperor can build trust by relinquishing power.
  - mariusmarais 6y ago
    What you're proposing as a solution has already happened: Google relinquished their control over this protocol to the IETF, where it changed so much as to be incompatible with Google's original. Now they're updating their own deployment, making it compatible with the updated standard. Chrome/Android/google.com is literally changing what they do to match what the standard says.
crazygringo 6y ago
> The myopic internal focus. Huh? They're reporting for their own products presumably because they have access to that information that is accurate, and they're a couple of the world's most popular, most visited sites. But the speed improvements will come for everyone who uses the protocols, not just Google, of course. What is sickening about that?
- dannyw 6y ago
  Google Chrome collects performance and usage information for _every_ site you visit, not just Google properties. This is part of "Chrome Lighthouse" or whatever.
- zymhan 6y ago
  That the protocol is designed primarily around saving Google some overhead, and not for reasons of usability, extensibility, or clarity.
rektide 6y ago
> This is the most sickening sentence for me. it's three sentences you quoted. imo this is a quite harsh & pointed take you have presented. you seem to focus on some very-nearby headline sentences that do focus on performance, where-as the real story is much more interesting & the tech much more promising. > blatant exploitation that’s occurring as there is too much centralised ownership what makes you think this is so lopsided? yes, the spdy drafts released in 2012 originated from google. and google spent enormous amounts of effort, time & money championing & supporting development of QUIC as it made it's way through the IETF, where other non-Google engineers also worked to improve HTTP and build a powerful new transport protocol that shows enormous progress & is opening doors. where is the exploitation? > The myopic internal focus. ‘Look we’ve made our new thing a standard and look it makes our products run faster’ actually they made two standards. this is much better than where we were. with http2, we had built a true monster of a specification, untame-able. for good reason! we wanted good things! but the http2 spec was trying to shoe-horn a bunch of streams inside tcp, a streaming transport protocol, and that never quite fit (head of line blocking problems resulted), but just as bad, it made http2 a massive work that was hard to evolve & grow & reuse & enhance. they took an extremely broad view, & said, these pieces don't belong together. they delegated responsibility into component pieces. they made pieces re-usable. the result is that there are now a couple dozen efforts related to improve the underlying QUIC transport for lots of interesting use cases. the QUIC working group lists a couple dozen efforts[1] & enhancements, such as multi-path, load-balancing tuning, multicast, ack controls, satcom capabilities, & webtransport, a potential radical simplification & rework of websockets in a more connection-friendly manner. this is all work being done outside of http, being done with quic, because of these advances by these very careful, considerate, thoughtful, aware engineers, & their willingness to work with other engineers & the IETF to figure out how best to improve things, how best to decouple http2's transport protocol from it's application protocols. > In my opinion this is predatory behaviour packaged up as open source good for all i would very much like to hear some of what you feel or think any of your numerous very heavy accusations are due or deserved. using acerbaic words like "most sickening sentence", "myopic internal focus", & "blatant explotation" are big big words, big angry moods, and it's really uncomfortable, really hard for me to process & deal with such emotional turmoil directed at something that seems so innocent & like such a natural refinement & progression over the very good solid ideas & improvement that were http2, as it tried to move on & progress beyond http1.1 pipelineing, which everyone wanted very much wanted & in many cases did give up on. so why do you hold your opinion? it really hurt me to hear your opinion, stated so pointedly, at such a lot of work that so many engineers all over the industry have contributed to & worked hard on. is this new dissent you have? are there other anti-http3 anti-quic folks who have staked some of their problems & claims & issues, or who have other ways they want the community to work through standards & specifications to improve the internet? what are the issues here, what's wrong? i for one thank my lucky stars that there are corporate patrons paying engineers good money to improve the world with works like this, to do the logical & consistent task of breaking http2 into it's transport (quic) and application (http3) protocols, improving the speed & reliability of the net. thank you Google & IETF for doing all sorts of good for us all, imo. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ there's a lot here beyond performance. i encourage you to investigate a little further & to see what quic + http3 bring & how they emerged from http2. that there is some performance win is good, but don't let that one statement narrow down your own understanding of this important enhancement. the best evidence i can point to is a quic look at the IETF work group's active & related documents[1] [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/

dheera 6y ago

Yep, because we've built an economy based on idiotic fiduciary duty instead of duty to technologically advance the civilization. Myopic focus is exactly what the system rewards.

aaronblohowiak 6y ago
What utility function would you propose?
- dheera 6y ago
  I don't have a well-defined solution, but I think the notion of companies selling shares to people in armchairs who neither necessarily use nor feel the side effects of the product is an issue. To a great degree I don't believe in 100% free market valuation of companies. Rather, I think the people most affected by the company (positively or negatively) should have the biggest say in its value. There also needs to be some adjustment to that valuation based on greater good delivered by the company. If they killed off a bunch of smaller businesses, that's a negative. If they emitted a bunch of carbon, that's a negative. If they caused injuries or deaths, that's a negative. If they contributed to open source products that enabled other companies to exist, that's a positive. Carbon taxes are one step at capturing one very small aspect of this "greater good" factor, but there need to be other adjustments as well. Another vague idea I've had is a hypothetical economic system in which the government doesn't print money (or isn't the only one printing money) but rather money is brought to existence by certain good deeds. Money can also be traded for goods and services, of course, in addition. So while you could make money by selling food or selling phones, you could also literally print your own money (translate: government hands it to you, in a controlled fashion) by sucking carbon out of the environment and proving that you did that to claim your money.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    > ...but I think the notion of companies selling shares to people in armchairs who neither necessarily use nor feel the side effects of the product is an issue. Their function is to raise money, whether they use the product or not (you don’t invest in something unless you believe it will provide value to some group of people) they’ve done their job and the company can continue to advance and adapt due to the capital. Further if you set what a company can be worth you’ve limited their resources and limited their innovation as a result. You’ve also turned human labor into currency in an attempt to get rid of currency. You cannot get rid of the concept of money. Without it you must trade resources (like labor), which history has shown is a very bad idea. The idea of a government being able to print money is a very deliberate feature, not a bug. I cannot do this justice, but read up on why we have money in the first place.

namesbc 6y ago

It is improving performance for EVERYONE. They just published the stats for their own stack so people can compare.

krzyk 6y ago
Increases performance by 3%, and complicates HTTP by 100%. I'm not sure I would like that. I would understand if it was 2x performance gain or at least 50%, but a mere 3%?
- sangnoir 6y ago
  This is exactly why it's important that they publish their figures - so you can make a decision if it's works for you after weighing the tradeoffs. For high-traffic properties (Google, CDNs, Netflix), 3% can easily translate to millions of dollars saved - they could hire an entire team just to deal with the HTTP complications.
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
  3% of HTTP traffic is a lot.
  - aruggirello 6y ago
    Web page weight has increased 300% on average in the last decade only.
  - swiley 6y ago
    Most of it is garbage that doesn't need to be there and is shoved in people's faces because it makes other people money/power. Ex: Why does clicking on a location link in google search load a big slow SPA to display a list of "cards" instead of just having a maps/web link in the search results?
    - GrantZvolsky 6y ago
      I thought it's because Google isn't allowed to promote Google Maps in its search results, but a cursory search didn't yield any evidence. Presumably if Search did link to Google Maps, other geographic information systems would have to be represented, just like various streaming platforms are represented in the video tab.

Animats 6y ago

All that effort to get a tiny improvement. The real motivation is probably to merge ads into the same stream as the content, so they can't be blocked by anything outside the browser.

rektide 6y ago
this is such uneducated mean ness. real engineers from all over care about improving http a lot. you throw random conspiracy grade conjecture in, throw this uneducated disrespectful shade why? how much effort have you made to understand the improvements? you show no recognition that the concensus-based ietf working groups are in agreement that this is a worthy & good enhancement to http3. please do not degrade that work so coursely & with such empty hot air. be civil.
- Matheus28 6y ago
  I don't see how what he said is offensive or uncivil at all
- martin_a 6y ago
  Nevertheless we should all be as clear as possible about Googles' motivation for pushing any new technology: Better data collection, more/better/fine-tuned ads.
- divbzero 6y ago
  I don’t think GP’s speculation is anywhere close to “random conspiracy grade” stuff. It’s predictable and plausible enough of a motive to be mentioned elsewhere in this thread, e.g. this top-level comment [1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24711247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24711247
- otoburb 6y ago
  >>how much effort have you made to understand the improvements? you show no recognition that the concensus-based ietf working groups are in agreement that this is a worthy & good enhancement to http3. Most network stacks in major operating systems enable Nagle's algorithm[1] which was designed in the mid 80's to improve the efficiency of TCP/IP networks. John Nagle, the parent you're responding to, likely understands the HTTP/3 improvements at a level beyond what most of us can comprehend given his deep experience in this area[2]. As the author of two foundational RFCs (RFC896[3] and RFC970[4]), I think the parent also has a fairly good recognition of and experience working with IETF working groups. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagle%27s_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagle%27s_algorithm [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381957 [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc896 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc896 [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc970 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc970

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

"The myopic internal focus." When "everyone" uses your software/websites, you can get away with this, much like Microsoft did back in the day. Internal Windows programs ran faster and seemed more stable than third party software written to run on Windows. It generally offered better "UX", to use today's lingo. The thing that is totally ignored by the myopic focus is the value of not being part of the Borg. Putting small speed differences aside, that value is not insubstantial, though the Google communications department is not responsible for keeping users informed about anything more than the value of Google. The fastest internet would be one without ads (not to mention the other benefits). Google will not inform anyone about that. It is not included in any tests.

majewsky 6y ago
> The fastest internet would be one without ads I don't disagree with your sentiment. However, their biggest gains in terms of percentage points (as discussed in the article) are for YouTube. And YouTube wouldn't be significantly faster without ads in the way that browsing primarily textual websites is faster without ads. Getting buffering times down is actually a substantial improvement here esp. on flaky connections. (Though the article doesn't make it clear whether flaky connections specifically benefit from QUIC.)
- voixdelaraison 6y ago
  Waiting for pre-roll ads on YouTube certainly slows down the viewing experience. I do not use the YouTube JavaScript player. I download the video using a custom script and an HTTP client like tnftp and watch offline. Google is suggesting that users use their browser, their website and their internal player to view someone else's video file, so Google can serve ads, do tracking and collect analytics. The testing is not something generic like downloading a file from a server; instead, it uses Google protocol, Google browser, Google website, Google player and is announced on Google blog. All to show it will benefit everyone, of course.
pyuser583 6y ago
Ironically, googles internal deployment system is called Borg.

rektide 6y ago

> In my opinion this is predatory behaviour packaged up as open source good for all. you appear to have made no attempt to understand or grasp what or why of quic & http3. many ietf engineers from all corners have worked on this because they believe to be an improvement. this tackles very real head of line blocking problems & introduces a much more forward & fast security model. quit your cheap slander please. your casual, uninvested vitriolic outburst is disgusting. show some manners. you immediately jumped to the nasty gross conclusion you wanted to based off some engineers citing improved performance, threw slander at the attempt without even a quick look at how or why engineers sought these improvements. this behavior is sickeningly anti-social, & nothing more than a projection of your warped world view. please attempt to surface something even somewhat copied to truth when you go about shooting off.

dang 6y ago
Breaking the site guidelines this badly is easily a bannable offense on HN. Worse, we already asked you a few weeks ago not to do it anymore: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24512910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24512910. I'm going to cut you some slack because it looks like your other comments since then have been good, but if you do it again we are going to have to ban you, so please review the rules and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

zmj 6y ago

People argue both sides of this. If Google implements a new protocol on their servers and their clients without standardizing it, they're end-running the standards process or embrace-extend-extinguishing the open internet. If they do standardize it and then deploy the standard implementation, they're.. I don't even know, making billions of page loads faster and that's bad because they're Google? What's the right way for Google to improve their internet-facing services at a protocol level?

KyeRussell 6y ago
I imagine that a prerequisite is to hire every person that'd complain about this stuff on Hacker News, so that they'd be on Google's team.
millstone 6y ago
The underlying concern is that Google is in a position to dictate. They control most phones and most browsers and the most popular websites. Any standardization is pro forma, because what matters is what Chrome/Android/google.com does, and not what the standard says. An emperor can build trust by relinquishing power.
- mariusmarais 6y ago
  What you're proposing as a solution has already happened: Google relinquished their control over this protocol to the IETF, where it changed so much as to be incompatible with Google's original. Now they're updating their own deployment, making it compatible with the updated standard. Chrome/Android/google.com is literally changing what they do to match what the standard says.

crazygringo 6y ago

> The myopic internal focus. Huh? They're reporting for their own products presumably because they have access to that information that is accurate, and they're a couple of the world's most popular, most visited sites. But the speed improvements will come for everyone who uses the protocols, not just Google, of course. What is sickening about that?

dannyw 6y ago
Google Chrome collects performance and usage information for _every_ site you visit, not just Google properties. This is part of "Chrome Lighthouse" or whatever.
zymhan 6y ago
That the protocol is designed primarily around saving Google some overhead, and not for reasons of usability, extensibility, or clarity.

rektide 6y ago

> This is the most sickening sentence for me. it's three sentences you quoted. imo this is a quite harsh & pointed take you have presented. you seem to focus on some very-nearby headline sentences that do focus on performance, where-as the real story is much more interesting & the tech much more promising. > blatant exploitation that’s occurring as there is too much centralised ownership what makes you think this is so lopsided? yes, the spdy drafts released in 2012 originated from google. and google spent enormous amounts of effort, time & money championing & supporting development of QUIC as it made it's way through the IETF, where other non-Google engineers also worked to improve HTTP and build a powerful new transport protocol that shows enormous progress & is opening doors. where is the exploitation? > The myopic internal focus. ‘Look we’ve made our new thing a standard and look it makes our products run faster’ actually they made two standards. this is much better than where we were. with http2, we had built a true monster of a specification, untame-able. for good reason! we wanted good things! but the http2 spec was trying to shoe-horn a bunch of streams inside tcp, a streaming transport protocol, and that never quite fit (head of line blocking problems resulted), but just as bad, it made http2 a massive work that was hard to evolve & grow & reuse & enhance. they took an extremely broad view, & said, these pieces don't belong together. they delegated responsibility into component pieces. they made pieces re-usable. the result is that there are now a couple dozen efforts related to improve the underlying QUIC transport for lots of interesting use cases. the QUIC working group lists a couple dozen efforts[1] & enhancements, such as multi-path, load-balancing tuning, multicast, ack controls, satcom capabilities, & webtransport, a potential radical simplification & rework of websockets in a more connection-friendly manner. this is all work being done outside of http, being done with quic, because of these advances by these very careful, considerate, thoughtful, aware engineers, & their willingness to work with other engineers & the IETF to figure out how best to improve things, how best to decouple http2's transport protocol from it's application protocols. > In my opinion this is predatory behaviour packaged up as open source good for all i would very much like to hear some of what you feel or think any of your numerous very heavy accusations are due or deserved. using acerbaic words like "most sickening sentence", "myopic internal focus", & "blatant explotation" are big big words, big angry moods, and it's really uncomfortable, really hard for me to process & deal with such emotional turmoil directed at something that seems so innocent & like such a natural refinement & progression over the very good solid ideas & improvement that were http2, as it tried to move on & progress beyond http1.1 pipelineing, which everyone wanted very much wanted & in many cases did give up on. so why do you hold your opinion? it really hurt me to hear your opinion, stated so pointedly, at such a lot of work that so many engineers all over the industry have contributed to & worked hard on. is this new dissent you have? are there other anti-http3 anti-quic folks who have staked some of their problems & claims & issues, or who have other ways they want the community to work through standards & specifications to improve the internet? what are the issues here, what's wrong? i for one thank my lucky stars that there are corporate patrons paying engineers good money to improve the world with works like this, to do the logical & consistent task of breaking http2 into it's transport (quic) and application (http3) protocols, improving the speed & reliability of the net. thank you Google & IETF for doing all sorts of good for us all, imo. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ there's a lot here beyond performance. i encourage you to investigate a little further & to see what quic + http3 bring & how they emerged from http2. that there is some performance win is good, but don't let that one statement narrow down your own understanding of this important enhancement. the best evidence i can point to is a quic look at the IETF work group's active & related documents[1] [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/