Evolution of HTTP
developer.mozilla.org
developer.mozilla.org
HTTP2+ IS HTTPS.
And it's the opposite of secure.
Use this over HTTP/1.1 instead: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2289
What an odd way of phrasing it. It should be, "The next major version of HTTP, HTTP/3, will be QUIC and so drop TCP for UDP and require CA based TLS for every single connection. Regular connections not requiring a third party corporation to approve will be impossible."
Or can one install an arbitrary CA and limit it to `*.example.com`?
HTTP/3 can be for people/applications that value what is has to offer, and can largely be ignored otherwise.
1. Make CA #1 2. Make CA #2, have CA #1 sign (a certificate for) this CA with a constraint saying it is valid only for DNS names in example.com and nothing else 3. Destroy CA #1 irrevocably 4. Trust CA #1 in your browser or other relying party software 5. You can now use CA #2 to issue with your constraint.
If you care only about specific web browsers, you can modify the browser software (this is practical for Firefox and to some extent Chromium) to alter its built-in trust semantics to give you chosen CA different constraints. Firefox ships with constraints for a handful of CAs which, in Mozilla's opinion, can be afforded such limited trust so you can model your changes on how that works. https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Additional_Trust_Changes
It effects human people trying to host a generally accessible public website. Since HTTP/3 using QUIC cannot establish a connection to a site without a cert the public cannot access my hypthetical HTTP/3 website unless I get a corporation to continiously approve of it (ie, letsencrypt).
Distributing my self signed CA chain to the browser mechanisms appropriate for it for every random person around the world that would try to load to my website is not realistic.
For now HTTP 1.1 is still supported by all browsers. But it won't be long till it is phased out "for security" when it no longer makes profit-sense for megacorp browsers to support it (ie, none of their services require it). And when that happens it will no longer be possible to host a website without corporation permission. That's bad.
No?
Http/3 is one application of quic, but sits on top of it.
That’s why it has a separate RFC, which explains that:
> While delegating stream lifetime and flow-control issues to QUIC, a binary framing similar to the HTTP/2 framing is used on each stream. Some HTTP/2 features are subsumed by QUIC, while other features are implemented atop QUIC.
While google did design QUIC with HTTP in mind, you can use QUIC for other protocols e.g. Microsoft has shipped SMB on QUIC in Windows Server 2022. MS also supports direct QUIC uses on Xbox Series consoles and has a guide to use MsQuic with the GDK.
This is so fucking ridiculous. Tried writing my first android app a few months ago, and for reasons wanted to do QUIC. I was absolutely sure this was going to be a no-brainer, as Google more or less being the inventor of it, or at least a very strong proponent, must have made quic a first class citizen of Android and its SDK years ago now. I mean, all their apps use it. Imagine how much in disbelief I was when I learned there is nothing available, except a library that wraps Chrome's network engine and let's you use http3 over quic, but not quic directly. You'd have to fiddle with using a 3rd party native lib and some bindings and whatnot, so I just deleted Android studio and went for a walk. Yes I'm still bitter.
"An argument for Gemini."
Given that you can serve plaintext (or barebones HTML) over the Web and that every browser will still happily speak HTTP/1.0 or even HTTP/0.9, I don't understand the draw (other than the nostalgic aesthetic).
no trackers or ads
no need for a CA
it's much easier to create a browser for it, it's in fact something a single developer can do in a weekend project
it's not controlled by any corporation
* If you don't want JS, don't use it.
* If you don't want trackers or ads, don't put them in.
* This is the only publisher-touching downside, and LetsEncrypt is an effective mitigation.
* If you want to make a site Lynx-compatible, test it in Lynx.
* The downsides of this are too diffuse to immediately drive demand. Nobody is directly impacted by it.
on the client side it ensures that JS, ADS, trackers etc won't be there and the client can bet there will be no surprise
Gemini is the equivalent of "make the impossible states impossible"
The best a malevolent publisher can do is look at the logs, because not even the transparent pixel is allowed.
It's worth pointing out that the goal of Gemini is not to replace the WEB and that it it is still possible to publish pure HTML web sites with the same characteristics (but for how long?)
also Gemini has no headers so no cookies, that, depending on the platform, could be out of the control of the publisher.
I am working (slowly) on some Gemini project
Mainly because there is no money involved in it and monetisation is not a thing.
Gemini, for example, makes it really easy to build search engines that actually work and cannot be weaponized against their users
Because the protocol is so limited that it's impossible, or highly impractical, to follow that route (no money also means no incentive)