|
|
|
|
|
|
by WorldMaker
3619 days ago
|
|
|
« if not someone with an agenda had declined » Because privacy and security by default are a bad agenda to agree to? « the whole HTTP/2 name is massive misnomer (since it doesn't actually support HTTP) » HTTP/2 is backwards compatible. It may not be your idea of the right direction for HTTP/1.x, but that doesn't make it a misnomer. To be honest, the only people that can decide if it was the right name for it are the IETF and they already made that decision. There's a reason that the name SPDY looked nothing like HTTP, because Google left that decision to the IETF as the standards body controlling the fate of the HTTP protocol. |
|
|
Taking away people's ability to host servers and services for themselves without having to register with a DNS provider and a CA are two major privacy violations, and a roadblock to easy application deployment of applications on your own LAN.
So yes, it's a bad agenda. Because it's not "by default". It's the only choice. You can't choose not to incriminate yourself and your identity to a centralised internet registry if want to host a service now.
You may not realise it, but once again you as a representative of the http/2 crowd is using wildly misleading language.