[skaushik92]

I see what you’re saying and agree that HTTP3 is complicated but I would that since it’s a backwards compatible standard, the added complexities are completely optional. For most use cases the basic protocol is perfectly suitable and only as the scale evolves does it require the additional complexity.

[samtho]

I understand what you’re saying, but if someone decides to post a link to their project that is an HTTP/3 server in under X lines of code but only implements HTTP/2 features, is it really an HTTP/3 web server?

[fsckboy]

the HTTP/3 standard for servers is not backward compatible with HTTP/2 servers, it is backward compatible with HTTP/2 clients. And vice versa

And therefore, an HTTP/2 server calling itself compatible with HTTP/3 clients is OK

[samtho]

It might be OK on a technical level, but my concern is where someone is showing off a project they used to supposedly learn how to implement HTTP/3 but only goes far enough to use an HTTP/2 implementation because fully implementing 3 is too complex or not worth it.

[skaushik92]

Where does it say it is an HTTP/3 server? Looking at the tests it seems that it’s just a HTTP/1 server I think.