This is the email I sent to the IETF HTTP Working Group:
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: HTTP/2 Expression of luke-warm interest: Varnish To: HTTP Working Group <email@example.com> Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:48:20 GMT
This is Varnish' response to the call for expression of interest in HTTP/2.
Presently Varnish only implements a subset of HTTP/1.1 consistent with its hybrid/dual "http-server" / "http-proxy" role.
I cannot at this point say much about what Varnish will or will not implement protocol wise in the future.
Our general policy is to only add protocols if we can do a better job than the alternative, which is why we have not implemented HTTPS for instance.
Should the outcome of the HTTP/2.0 effort result in a protocol which gains traction, Varnish will probably implement it, but we are unlikely to become an early implementation, given the current proposals at the table.
I have read all, and participated in one, of the three proposals presently on the table.
Overall, I find all three proposals are focused on solving yesteryears problems, rather than on creating a protocol that stands a chance to last us the next 20 years.
Each proposal comes out of a particular "camp" and therefore all seem to suffer a certain amount from tunnel-vision.
It is my considered opinion that none of the proposals have what it will take to replace HTTP/1.1 in practice.
We have learned, painfully, that an IPv6 which is only marginally better than IPv4 and which offers no tangible benefit for the people who have the cost/trouble of the upgrade, does not penetrate the network on its own, and barely even on governments mandate.
We have also learned that a protocol which delivers the goods can replace all competition in virtually no time.
See for instance how SSH replaced TELNET, REXEC, RSH, SUPDUP, and to a large extent KERBEROS, in a matter of a few years.
Or I might add, how HTTP replaced GOPHER.
HTTP/1.1 is arguably in the top-five most used protocols, after IP, TCP, UDP and, sadly, ICMP, and therefore coming up with a replacement should be approached humbly.
Fortunately, there are many ways to improve over HTTP/1.1, which lacks support for several widely used features, and sports many trouble-causing weeds, both of which are ripe for HTTP/2.0 to pounce on.
Most notably HTTP/1.1 lacks a working session/endpoint-identity facility, a shortcoming which people have pasted over with the ill-conceived Cookie hack.
Cookies are, as the EU commission correctly noted, fundamentally flawed, because they store potentially sensitive information on whatever computer the user happens to use, and as a result of various abuses and incompetences, EU felt compelled to legislate a "notice and announce" policy for HTTP-cookies.
But it doesn't stop there: The information stored in cookies have potentially very high value for the HTTP server, and because the server has no control over the integrity of the storage, we are now seeing cookies being crypto-signed, to prevent forgeries.
The term "bass ackwards" comes to mind.
Cookies are also one of the main wasters of bandwidth, disabling caching by default, sending lots of cookies were they are are not needed, which made many sites register separate domains for image content, to "save" bandwidth by avoiding cookies.
The term "not really helping" also comes to mind.
In my view, HTTP/2.0 should kill Cookies as a concept, and replace it with a session/identity facility, which makes it easier to do things right with HTTP/2.0 than with HTTP/1.1.
Being able to be "automatically in compliance" by using HTTP/2.0 no matter how big dick-heads your advertisers are or how incompetent your web-developers are, would be a big selling point for HTTP/2.0 over HTTP/1.1.
However, as I read them, none of the three proposals try to address, much less remedy, this situation, nor for that matter any of the many other issues or troubles with HTTP/1.x.
What's even worse, they are all additive proposals, which add a new layer of complexity without removing any of the old complexity from the protocol.
My conclusion is that HTTP/2.0 is really just a grandiose name for HTTP/1.2: An attempt to smooth out some sharp corners, to save a bit of bandwidth, but not get anywhere near all the architectural problems of HTTP/1.1 and to preserve faithfully its heritage of badly thought out sedimentary hacks.
And therefore, I don't see much chance that the current crop of HTTP/2.0 proposals will fare significantly better than IPv6 with respect to adoption.
One particular hot-spot in the HTTP world these days is the "load-balancer" or as I prefer to call it, the "HTTP router".
These boxes sit at the DNS resolved IP numbers and distributes client requests to a farm of HTTP servers, based on simple criteria such as "Host:", URI patterns and/or server availability, sometimes with an added twist of geo-location.
HTTP routers see very high traffic densities, the highest traffic densities, because they are the focal point of DoS mitigation, flash mobs and special event traffic spikes.
In the time frame where HTTP/2.0 will become standardized, HTTP routers will routinely deal with 40Gbit/s traffic and people will start to architect for 1Tbit/s traffic.
HTTP routers are usually only interested in a small part of the HTTP request and barely in the response at all, usually only the status code.
The demands for bandwidth efficiency has made makers of these devices take many unwarranted shortcuts, for instance assuming that requests always start on a packet boundary, "nulling out" HTTP headers by changing the first character and so on.
Whatever HTTP/2.0 becomes, I strongly urge IETF and the WG to formally recognize the role of HTTP routers, and to actively design the protocol to make life easier for HTTP routers, so that they can fulfill their job, while being standards compliant.
The need for HTTP routers does not disappear just because HTTPS is employed, and serious thought should be turned to the question of mixing HTTP and HTTPS traffic on the same TCP connection, while allowing a HTTP router on the server side to correctly distribute requests to different servers.
One simple way to gain a lot of benefit for little cost in this area, would be to assign "flow-labels" which each are restricted to one particular Host: header, allowing HTTP routers to only examine the first request on each flow.
SPDY has come a long way, and has served as a very worthwhile proof of concept prototype, to document that there are gains to be had.
But as Frederick P. Brooks admonishes us: Always throw the prototype away and start over, because you will throw it away eventually, and doing so early saves time and effort.
Overall, I find the design approach taken in SPDY deeply flawed.
For instance identifying the standardized HTTP headers, by a 4-byte length and textual name, and then applying a deflate compressor to save bandwidth is totally at odds with the job of HTTP routers which need to quickly extract the Host: header in order to route the traffic, preferably without committing extensive resources to each request.
It is also not at all clear if the built-in dictionary is well researched or just happens to work well for some subset of present day websites, and at the very least some kind of versioning of this dictionary should be incorporated.
It is still unclear for me if or how SPDY can be used on TCP port 80 or if it will need a WKS allocation of its own, which would open a ton of issues with firewalling, filtering and proxying during deployment.
(This is one of the things which makes it hard to avoid the feeling that SPDY really wants to do away with all the "middle-men")
With my security-analyst hat on, I see a lot of DoS potential in the SPDY protocol, many ways in which the client can make the server expend resources, and foresee a lot of complexity in implementing the server side to mitigate and deflect malicious traffic.
Server Push breaks the HTTP transaction model, and opens a pile of cans of security and privacy issues, which would not be sneaked in during the design of a transport-encoding for HTTP/1+ traffic, but rather be standardized as an independent and well analysed extension to HTTP in general.
Is really just SPDY with WebSockets underneath.
I'm really not sure I see any benefit to that, except that the encoding chosen is marginally more efficient to implement in hardware than SPDY.
I have not understood why it has "mobility" in the name, a word which only makes an appearance in the ID as part of the name.
If the use of the word "mobility" only refers only to bandwidth usage, I would call its use borderline-deceptive.
If it covers session stability across IP# changes for mobile devices, I have missed it in my reading.
I have participated a little bit in this draft initially, but it uses a number of concepts which I think are very problematic for high performance (as in 1Tbit/s) implementations, for instance variant-size length fields etc.
I do think the proposal is much better than the other two, taking a much more fundamental view of the task, and if for no other reason, because it takes an approach to bandwidth-saving based on enumeration and repeat markers, rather than throwing everything after deflate and hope for a miracle.
I think this protocol is the best basis to start from, but like the other two, it has a long way to go, before it can truly earn the name HTTP/2.0.
Overall, I don't see any of the three proposals offer anything that will make the majority of web-sites go "Ohh we've been waiting for that!"
Bigger sites will be enticed by small bandwidth savings, but the majority of the HTTP users will see scant or no net positive benefit if one or more of these three proposals were to become HTTP/2.0
Considering how sketchy the HTTP/1.1 interop is described it is hard to estimate how much trouble (as in: "Why doesn't this website work ?") their deployment will cause, nor is it entirely clear to what extent the experience with SPDY is representative of a wider deployment or only of 'flying under the radar' with respect to people with an interest in intercepting HTTP traffic.
Given the role of HTTP/1.1 in the net, I fear that the current rush to push out a HTTP/2.0 by purely additive means is badly misguided, and approaching a critical mass which will delay or prevent adoption on its own.
At the end of the day, a HTTP request or a HTTP response is just some metadata and an optional chunk of bytes as body, and if it already takes 700 pages to standardize that, and HTTP/2.0 will add another 100 pages to it, we're clearly doing something wrong.
I think it would be far better to start from scratch, look at what HTTP/2.0 should actually do, and then design a simple, efficient and future proof protocol to do just that, and leave behind all the aggregations of badly thought out hacks of HTTP/1.1.
But to the extent that the WG produces a HTTP/2.0 protocol which people will start to use, the Varnish project will be interested.
Author of Varnish
 Yes, I'm that old.
 No, I'm not kidding.