3 ms·
Certainly, there are plenty of things in HTTP 2.0 that make sense to be there, such as server push, specialized header compression, etc. However, some things,
by comex 13y ago
Certainly, there are plenty of things in HTTP 2.0 that make sense to be there, such as server push, specialized header compression, etc.
However, some things, such as avoiding making multiple connections due to congestion and due to slow-start being slow, flow control, and arguably encryption, seem like they would be better addressed in TCP. And in fact, Google is trying to do that with QUIC.
The problem is that if (when) those things get standardized in HTTP/2.0, they need to be supported forever, even if an improved transport layer protocol makes them obsolete in relatively short order.
- jimktrains2 13y agoYour post made me reflect a bit and I agree with you whole-heartedly. I wouldn't have such a visceral dislike of HTTP/2.0 if it didn't have the TCP-like features in it.
- FooBarWidget 13y agoYou can't address things in TCP. There is so much network infrastructure deployed that trying to push any non-backward compatible change in TCP is futile. Google did the right thing by addressing the problems in layer 5.
- comex 13y agoThen just tunnel on top of UDP, like QUIC currently does. Doesn't mean it has to be specific to one application.