TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)

189 pointsby asm89almost 12 years ago

9 comments

exceptionealmost 12 years ago
<p><pre><code> In my view, HTTP&#x2F;2.0 should kill Cookies as a concept, and replace it with a session&#x2F;identity facility, which makes it easier to do things right with HTTP&#x2F;2.0 than with HTTP&#x2F;1.1. </code></pre> count me in. Cookies are a huge waste of bandwidth and freaking annoying here in Europe as you cannot visit a site anymore without being warned you are about to receive yet even more cookies.
评论 #6015322 未加载
评论 #6015515 未加载
评论 #6015826 未加载
评论 #6017124 未加载
评论 #6015429 未加载
richardwhiukalmost 12 years ago
What really frustrates me about HTTP as a protocol is that it provides the beginning of a framework to do session management using the WWW-Authenticate headers, but it&#x27;s ignored because the site can&#x27;t provide a good UX. Instead we end up with phishing, terrible login forms and poor security when people reimplement session management in Cookies.
评论 #6017175 未加载
评论 #6017907 未加载
cromwellianalmost 12 years ago
This has been going on for a long time and nothing got done. HTTP-NG started in 1997. If you try to boil oceans, you get nothing.<p>The recent why SPDY is succeeding is because it is not trying to solve every problem and grind every axe.
kkielhofneralmost 12 years ago
A good analysis but somewhat dated. It has been established, for instance, that with a compatible SSL lib and TLS NPN support SPDY&#x2F;HTTPbis can be supported on the same socket and port as HTTPS. With that said I really like what PHK has to say about &quot;HTTP routers&quot;.
评论 #6018075 未加载
jokoonalmost 12 years ago
Well transmitting text never seemed really very much interesting.<p>http was nice because it was easy for software programmers to write apps that could work over http, because no binary protocol was involved: reading ASCII strings is never complicated. It was good for a growing industry.<p>Now most browsers are open source, why can&#x27;t the IETF work out a binary protocol ? Bittorrent is binary, and it&#x27;s awesome and it&#x27;s used. Why can&#x27;t any browser work out a binary protocol ? Truly dynamic pages over the network ? Why not ? I&#x27;m sure some software already does that. Make one open source, make it work on firefox or chrome, I guess things would start to light up.
评论 #6018026 未加载
osthalmost 12 years ago
I wonder if header compression is primarily to allow for ubiquitous, large cookies.<p>Cookies were originally and with few exceptions remain a hack to try to add state to transactions that were not intended to be stateful.<p>If indeed the header compression is driven by the growing prevalence and size of cookies, then HTTP&#x2F;2 is an effort to accomodate a hack. Not very interesting.<p>Some hacks that find their way into RFC&#x27;s are difficult to remove because the transition process would be unreasonably expensive, like replacing the &quot;sophomoric&quot; compression scheme in DNS with something more sensible like LZ77 (credit: djb). I guess we might see some passionate arguments by web developers about the great expense of removing cookies from the HTTP standard and replacing it with a session facility, but I think the (long term) benefits easily outweigh the (short term) costs.
_deliriumalmost 12 years ago
Some discussion from last year, fwiw: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4253538" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=4253538</a>
tracker1almost 12 years ago
In reading this a protocol that supports two initial statements upon connection&#x2F;negotiation as follows...<p><pre><code> s: http&#x2F;2.0 {SERVER INFO} c: connect host&#x2F; &lt;-- no path s: OK {server-cert&#x2F;key} -- all futher requests encrypted against public key&#x2F;cert c: session-start {client key&#x2F;cert} s: SESSION: {session id} ({domain1},{domain2},...) c: (COMMAND|get|put|post|delete) {PATH} s: OK or DENIED ### (reason) &lt;-- response code &amp; reason or REDIRECT host&#x2F;(path) &lt;-- if the file is physically on another backend c: {OTHER REQUEST HEADERS START} </code></pre> after a session is started, the client may make other requests<p><pre><code> s: http&#x2F;2.0 {SERVER INFO} c: connect host&#x2F;{path} s: OK {server-cert&#x2F;key} or DENIED ### Reason -- all futher requests encrypted against public key&#x2F;cert c: session-join {SESSION_ID} {client key&#x2F;cert} s: OK or DENIED... c: {COMMAND} {path} </code></pre> from there, the &quot;session_id&quot; can be a key for server-side value storage&#x2F;lookup, etc... sent over the encrypted channel
mbetteralmost 12 years ago
&gt; Our general policy is to only add protocols if we can do a better job than the alternative, which is why we have not implemented HTTPS for instance.
评论 #6017934 未加载