3 ms·
Not to mention the companies backing it are so large and critical they can simply mandate it and enterprises will just have to deal with it, somehow.
by ronsor 3y ago
Not to mention the companies backing it are so large and critical they can simply mandate it and enterprises will just have to deal with it, somehow.
- londons_explore 3y agoso far, there is no reason to mandate http/3. There is barely any infrastructure cost to running a dual HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/3 setup. And the two are so similar to application developers that there is no reason to mandate anyone move over. However... It only takes one killer feature not compatible with HTTP/1.1 (eg. realtime VR with a stream per eye, and it turns out HTTP/1.1 can't do realtime bidirectional streams), and suddenly everyone will start turning off HTTP/1.1 services and replacing it with a page saying "please upgrade your web browser".
- api 3y agoThat part is great. It uses UDP, which means it helps prevent UDP from being sidelined or blocked by middleboxes. That in turn helps prevent the Internet from becoming a de-facto HTTP-only network, which was a trend that was kind of happening in the 20-teens and had me concerned.
- apitman 3y agoI agree, I just hope we don't see the opposite problem happen where we end up in a world where HTTP/1.1 over TCP goes away. I implemented a HTTP/1.1 server with range request support in JavaScript in a few hours last week. It's incomplete and likely rather insecure, but it works with curl and browsers. There's something important about having this ability.
- api 3y agoHTTP/1.1 going away is less likely than IPv4 going away.