Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcosdumay | Hacker News Reader

> Another random example is HTTP/3, which is basically the "What's best for Google" protocol.

HTTP/2 is that. The version 3 is... quite great, and not really originary from there.

And gRPC is some self-contained thing that doesn't bother anybody.

I do really agree with your point. But those examples are bad, and yet another non-standard cloud service isn't also a good example.

View on HN

It’s not from there? HTTP/3 is QUIC, right?

Oh you are right, QUIC is from there. I misremembered it.

And QUIC/HTTP3 was invented by Google to deliver more ads, faster. Yay.

This is like saying planes were invented to deliver you to more businesses, faster.

At least I enjoy taking the plane and I decide when to take it. Planes serve a purpose. Adtech is just parasitic. An Internet without ads wouldn't need QUIC.

For example, HTTP/3 uses QPACK, which has a static predefined list of HTTP header strings included in the standard.

What strings you ask?

The top hits Google captured from their data centre egress.

E.g.: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20.htm...

Notice that "content-encoding" includes br (Brotli), a Google compression algorithm that essentially only they were using at the time.

I don't understand what the objection is to the methodology. Are you claiming there is another party that has a better sample (even subjectively so) and was pushing it and didn't succeed? If anything, standards committees are often overly annoying and biased the other way just because some other company representative wants to justify their presence. That is also cherry picked. For example standardizing ALPN over NPN which is largely a downgrade for the average user done in the standard process. The examples you use simply indicate a certain company is ahead of the game in solving problems others also have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com