HTTP/2.0 — Bad protocol, bad politics
"HTTP/2.0 is not a technical masterpiece. It has layering violations, inconsistencies, needless complexity, bad compromises, misses a lot of ripe opportunities, etc."<p>I wish the article had spent more time talking about these things rather than rambling about "politics".<p>"HTTP/2.0 could have done away with cookies, replacing them instead with a client controlled session identifier."<p>That would have destroyed any hope of adoption by content providers and probably browsers.<p>"HTTP/2.0 will require a lot more computing power than HTTP/1.1 and thus cause increased CO2 pollution adding to climate change."<p>Citation? That said, I'm not considerably shocked that web standards aren't judged based on the impact of whatever computing devices may end up using them on their power grids and those power grids' use of energy sources.<p>"The proponents of HTTP/2.0 are also trying to use it as a lever for the "SSL anywhere" agenda, despite the fact that many HTTP applications have no need for, no desire for, or may even be legally banned from using encryption."<p>In the same paragraph, the author complains that HTTP/2.0 has no concern for privacy and then that they attempted to force encryption on everybody.<p>"There are even people who are legally barred from having privacy of communication: children, prisoners, financial traders, CIA analysts and so on."<p>This is so close to "think of the children" that I don't even know how to respond. The listed groups may have restrictions placed on them in certain settings that ensure their communications are monitored. But this doesn't prevent HTTP/2.0 with TLS from existing: there are a variety of other avenues by which their respective higher-ups can monitor the connections of those under their control.