Hacker News Reader

I know they aren't very comparable in a technical way, but look at the mindset. IPv6 included decisions that knowingly made it more different from v4 than strictly needed, cause they wanted it to be perfect day 1. If they did HTTPS like this, it'd be tied to HTTP/2.

Most browsers now discourage plain HTTP with a warning. Any customer-facing server basically needs to use HTTPS now. And you're rare if you actually have no ipv4, not even via a tunnel.

View on HN

HTTP has the leeway to do that because they have an easier technical job deploying updates.

If they only got one shot at changing HTTP, do you think they would have tied TLS to HTTP/2 or given up on HTTP/2 altogether?

The compromised "ipv4+" idea a bunch of people keep asking for wouldn't require changing the spec down the road. ISPs would just need to clean up their routes later, and SLAAC could still exist as an optional (rather than default) feature for anyone inclined to enable later. Btw, IPv6 spec was only finalized in 2017, wasn't exactly one-shot.

I don't know if HTTP's job is easier. Maybe on the client side, since there were never that many browsers, but you have load-balancers, CDNs, servers, etc. HTTP/2 adoption is still dragging out because of how many random things don't support it. Might be a big reason why gRPC isn't so popular too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com