Actually, I think I now understand where we disagree. It isn't exactly where I expected. You want a New Improved Transport Protocol that is a sharp break with

Actually, I think I now understand where we disagree. It isn't exactly where I expected. You want a New Improved Transport Protocol that is a sharp break with HTTP's past. I agree that would be a good thing. We both agree that HTTP2 isn't that. Where we disagree is this: You want NITP to be called HTTP2. I think doing that would be the surest way to smother NITP in its crib. In my opinion, an HTTP2 that made a radical change like not supporting cookies wouldn't be a step forward, it would just be perceived as "breaking everything" and would never get adopted. You can't just slap HTTP's brand on a radically different protocol and expect people to not notice or care about what's inside. If you want to do something really new, that's a much longer and harder path than what we see here. That's why things like HTTP2 (making improvements where practical while carrying forward the concepts and baggage of the past) are worth doing. Because while we're waiting for a bigger leap forward, we've accumulated a set of problems we can solve and that are worth solving.