Even HTTP/2 seems to have been rushed[1]. Chrome has removed support for server push. Maybe more thought should be put into these protocols instead of just rebranding whatever Google is trying to impose on us.
HTTP2 was a prototype that was designed by people who either assumed that mobile internet would get better much quicker than it did, or who didn't understand what packet loss did to throughput.
I suspect part of the problem is that some of the rush is that people at major companies will get a promotion if they do "high impact" work out in the open.
HTTP/2 "solves head of line blocking" which is doesn't. It exchanged an HTTP SSL blocking issues with TCP on the real internet issue. This was predicted at the time.
The other issue is that instead of keeping it a simple protocol, the temptation to add complexity to aid a specific use case gets too much. (It's human nature I don't blame them)
H/2 doesn't solve blocking it on the TCP level, but it solved another kind of blocking on the protocol level by having multiplexing.
H/1 pipelining was unusable, so H/1 had to wait for a response before sending the next request, which added a ton of latency, and made server-side processing serial and latency-sensitive. The solution to this was to open a dozen separate H/1 connections, but that multiplied setup cost, and made congestion control worse across many connections.
It's okay to make mistakes, that's how you learn and improve. Being conservative has drawbacks of its own. Id argue we need more parties involved earlier in the process rather than just time.
It's a weird balancing act. On the other hand, waiting for everyone to agree on everything means that the spec will take a decade or two for everyone to come together, and then all the additional time for everyone to actively support it.
AJAX is a decent example. Microsoft's Outlook Web Access team implemented XMLHTTP as an activex thing for IE 5 and soon the rest of the vendors adopted it as a standard thing as XmlHttpRequest objects.
In fact, I suspect the list of things that exist in browsers because one vendor thought it was a good idea and everyone hopped on board is far, far longer than those designed by committee. Often times, the initially released version is not exactly the same that everyone standardized on, but they all get to build on the real-world consequences of it.
I happen to like the TC39 process https://tc39.es/process-document/ which requires two live implementations with use in the wild for something to get into the final stage and become an official part of the specification. It is obviously harder for something like a network stack than a JavaScript engine to get real world use and feedback, but it has helped to keep a lot of the crazier vendor specific features at bay.
It's okay to make mistakes, but its not okay to ignore the broad consensus that HTTP2 was TERRIBLY designed and then admit it 10 years later as if it was unknowable. We knew it was bad.
This is a weak argument that simply caters to the ongoing HN hivemind opinion. While Google made the initial proposal, many other parties did participate in getting quic standardized. The industry at large was in favor.
KaiserPro|1 year ago
I suspect part of the problem is that some of the rush is that people at major companies will get a promotion if they do "high impact" work out in the open.
HTTP/2 "solves head of line blocking" which is doesn't. It exchanged an HTTP SSL blocking issues with TCP on the real internet issue. This was predicted at the time.
The other issue is that instead of keeping it a simple protocol, the temptation to add complexity to aid a specific use case gets too much. (It's human nature I don't blame them)
pornel|1 year ago
H/1 pipelining was unusable, so H/1 had to wait for a response before sending the next request, which added a ton of latency, and made server-side processing serial and latency-sensitive. The solution to this was to open a dozen separate H/1 connections, but that multiplied setup cost, and made congestion control worse across many connections.
surajrmal|1 year ago
zdragnar|1 year ago
AJAX is a decent example. Microsoft's Outlook Web Access team implemented XMLHTTP as an activex thing for IE 5 and soon the rest of the vendors adopted it as a standard thing as XmlHttpRequest objects.
In fact, I suspect the list of things that exist in browsers because one vendor thought it was a good idea and everyone hopped on board is far, far longer than those designed by committee. Often times, the initially released version is not exactly the same that everyone standardized on, but they all get to build on the real-world consequences of it.
I happen to like the TC39 process https://tc39.es/process-document/ which requires two live implementations with use in the wild for something to get into the final stage and become an official part of the specification. It is obviously harder for something like a network stack than a JavaScript engine to get real world use and feedback, but it has helped to keep a lot of the crazier vendor specific features at bay.
arcbyte|1 year ago
liveoneggs|1 year ago
surajrmal|1 year ago
est|1 year ago
pas|1 year ago
for a while there was a lot of research coming out form various institutions on congestion control, that's how we got CoDel, no?
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
cryptonector|1 year ago