Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

On 16/11/2013 9:06 a.m., Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Ven 15 novembre 2013 18:31, Roberto Peon a écrit :
>> That leaves us with either using a new port (infeasible, failure rate
>> still
>> in high 10%s) or doing something else so as to be able to deploy.
>> What is the something else would you suggest?
> I'm not convinced at all using a new port is infeasible. Yes, it would be
> devilishly hard for a new corner-case protocol. But the web as a whole is
> something else entirely and a new way to access it won't be dismissed so
> easily. Of course adoption would take years, you don't replace billions of
> web equipments that easily, but it would happen anyway.
> That is, provided the protocol actually brings enough on the table to
> justify the pain.

Exactly the same arguments apply to staying with port-80 in the first
place. There will be initial pain, but things will straighten out
eventually. Provided the protocol actually brings enough to the table to
justify upgrading/fixing the middleware which is currently problematic.

Additionally, a lot of the firewall and security designs will not have
to be changed.

HTTP/2 as an upgrade to HTTP/1 which works when it works (what was that
80% of the time right now?), but stays HTTP/1 when it doesn't is a major
selling factor.


Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 02:29:24 UTC