[bastawhiz]

Let's say you visit a site that doesn't use H2. That's now nearly a megabyte (up from 24kb) of data across the six connections that HTTP/1.1 establishes.

You're on LTE? You have high packet loss over a wireless connection? The initial TCP window size is ~16kb in a lot of cases, now you need multiple round trips over a high latency connection just to make the connection secure. You'll probably need 3-4 round trips on a stable connection just for the certificate. On a bad connection? Good luck.

[Veserv]

Exactly, HTTP/1.1 is a poorly designed protocol and there are good reasons why we have newer versions of HTTP which avoid multiple unnecessary encryption handshakes.

Exactly, using a blanket default initial congestion window of 16 KB is stupid. Even ignoring that it was chosen when average bandwidth was many times less and thus should be increased anyways to something on the order of the average BDP or you should use a better congestion control algorithm, it is especially stupid if you are beginning a connection that has a known minimum requirement before useful data can be sent.

These things should be fixed as well instead of papering them over. Your system should work well regardless of the size of the certificate chain except for the fundamental overhead of having a larger chain.

[bastawhiz]

I mean, unless you stop supporting H1, you're stuck with it. "Fixing" it means killing it. Unless you break every site/API that uses it, you can't do that.

Increasing the initial congestion window is probably smart, but increasing it to a size large enough to hold a 160kb certificate is almost certainly a terrible idea. Lots of people with "broadband" probably never get close to 160kb congestion window size.

Flaky wifi or a bad mobile signal will probably never get above a 32kb congestion window size—that's today, with modern hardware. That's five round trips assuming you start at 32kb and it never increases.

You think airplane wifi is bad? Imagine how bad it'll be when the congestion window starts at an order of magnitude bigger than it would normally ever reach. The "fix" means... Well I don't know actually, because if it could be good, you'd think at least one carrier would have good in-flight wifi. I doubt you could overcome to bureaucratic and technical challenges.

This isn't a problem that can be "fixed" in a lot of cases. If you optimize for the happy path, you're not just hurting people who literally don't have another option, you're hurting yourself when under bad connections.