|
|
|
|
|
by megaman821
4140 days ago
|
|
It is not a bad protocol for what is in there, it is bad for what is not. It seems like it was built for the big players to eek out 5% more performance. How about the average website? What is in there help standardize authentication? What is in there to help protect privacy? In the end it looks more HTTP 1.2, with header compression being the only new feature. The rest of what makes up HTTP 2 is basically implementing a new transport layer protocol at the application level. |
|
Keeping it backwards compatible with HTTP 1.1 as far as semantics means it will actually get real adoption, very easily, as you can seamlessly enable it via middleware without changing app code anywhere.
I don't know what you mean to "standardize auth", but seeing what a clusterfuck OAuth2 turned into, it'd probably guarantee HTTP2 wouldn't ship for a long time, then ship a mess.
To protect privacy, major browsers plan to only support HTTP2 over TLS. That should be a major incentive for more websites to force TLS. Pretty clever, sorta, even if we might have technical objections to requiring TLS for no "real" reason.