Menu
Home Explore People Places Arts History Plants & Animals Science Life & Culture Technology
On this page
HTTP/2
Version 2 of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used by the World Wide Web

HTTP/2, a major revision of the HTTP protocol used by the World Wide Web, was derived from the experimental SPDY protocol developed by Google. Created by the IETF's HTTP Working Group, HTTP/2 is the first update since HTTP/1.1 standardized in RFC 2068 (1997). Approved as a Proposed Standard by the IESG in 2015, HTTP/2 gained widespread support from major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge, with about 97% of browsers supporting it by the end of 2015. By 2023, 36% of the top 10 million websites used HTTP/2. Its successor is HTTP/3, which builds on HTTP/2’s innovations.

We don't have any images related to HTTP/2 yet.
We don't have any YouTube videos related to HTTP/2 yet.
We don't have any PDF documents related to HTTP/2 yet.
We don't have any Books related to HTTP/2 yet.

Goals

The working group charter mentions several goals and issues of concern:16

Differences from HTTP/1.1

The proposed changes do not require any changes to how existing web applications work, but new applications can take advantage of new features for increased speed.17 HTTP/2 leaves all of HTTP/1.1's high-level semantics, such as methods, status codes, header fields, and URIs, the same. What is new is how the data is framed and transported between the client and the server.18

Websites that are efficient minimize the number of requests required to render an entire page by minifying (reducing the amount of code and packing smaller pieces of code into bundles, without reducing its ability to function) resources such as images and scripts. However, minification is not necessarily convenient nor efficient and may still require separate HTTP connections to get the page and the minified resources. HTTP/2 allows the server to "push" content, that is, to respond with data for more queries than the client requested. This allows the server to supply data it knows a web browser will need to render a web page, without waiting for the browser to examine the first response, and without the overhead of an additional request cycle.19

Additional performance improvements in the first draft of HTTP/2 (which was a copy of SPDY) come from multiplexing of requests and responses to avoid some of the head-of-line blocking problem in HTTP 1 (even when HTTP pipelining is used), header compression, and prioritization of requests.20 However, as HTTP/2 runs on top of a single TCP connection there is still potential for head-of-line blocking to occur if TCP packets are lost or delayed in transmission.21 HTTP/2 no longer supports HTTP/1.1's chunked transfer encoding mechanism, as it provides its own, more efficient, mechanisms for data streaming.22

History

Genesis in and later differences from SPDY

SPDY (pronounced like "speedy") was a previous HTTP-replacement protocol developed by a research project spearheaded by Google.23 Primarily focused on reducing latency, SPDY uses the same TCP pipe but different protocols to accomplish this reduction. The basic changes made to HTTP/1.1 to create SPDY included "true request pipelining without FIFO restrictions, message framing mechanism to simplify client and server development, mandatory compression (including headers), priority scheduling, and even bi-directional communication".24

The HTTP Working Group considered Google's SPDY protocol, Microsoft's HTTP Speed+Mobility proposal (SPDY based),25 and Network-Friendly HTTP Upgrade.26 In July 2012, Facebook provided feedback on each of the proposals and recommended HTTP/2 be based on SPDY.27 The initial draft of HTTP/2 was published in November 2012 and was based on a straight copy of SPDY.28

The biggest difference between HTTP/1.1 and SPDY was that each user action in SPDY is given a "stream ID", meaning there is a single TCP channel connecting the user to the server. SPDY split requests into either control or data, using a "simple to parse binary protocol with two types of frames".2930 SPDY showed evident improvement over HTTP, with a new page load speedup ranging from 11% to 47%.31

The development of HTTP/2 used SPDY as a jumping-off point. Among the many detailed differences between the protocols, the most notable is that HTTP/2 uses a fixed Huffman code-based header compression algorithm, instead of SPDY's dynamic stream-based compression. This helps to reduce the potential for compression oracle attacks on the protocol, such as the CRIME attack.32

On February 9, 2015, Google announced plans to remove support for SPDY in Chrome in favor of support for HTTP/2.33 This took effect starting with Chrome 51.3435

Development milestones

DateMilestone36
December 20, 20073738First HTTP/1.1 Revision Internet Draft
January 23, 200839First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
Early 201240Call for Proposals for HTTP 2.0
October 14 – November 25, 20124142Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 Revision
November 28, 20124344First WG draft of HTTP 2.0, based upon draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00
Held/EliminatedWorking Group Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
September 20134546Submit HTTP/1.1 Revision to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
February 12, 201447IESG approved HTTP/1.1 Revision to publish as a Proposed Standard
June 6, 20144849Publish HTTP/1.1 Revision as RFC 7230, 7231, 7232, 7233, 7234, 7235
August 1, 2014 – September 1, 20145051Working Group Last call for HTTP/2
December 16, 201452Submit HTTP/2 to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
December 31, 2014 – January 14, 201553IETF Last Call for HTTP/2
January 22, 201554IESG telechat to review HTTP/2 as Proposed Standard
February 17, 201555IESG approved HTTP/2 to publish as Proposed Standard
May 14, 201556Publish HTTP/2 as RFC 7540
February 2020RFC 8740: HTTP/2 with TLS 1.3
June 2022RFC 9113: Further refinements
April 2024DOS issues with CONTINUATION frames https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/421644

Encryption

HTTP/2 is defined both for HTTP URIs (i.e. without TLS encryption, a configuration which is abbreviated in h2c) and for HTTPS URIs (over TLS using ALPN extension57 where TLS 1.2 or newer is required, a configuration which is abbreviated in h2).

Although the standard itself does not require usage of encryption,58 all major client implementations (Firefox,59 Chrome, Safari, Opera, IE, Edge) have stated that they will only support HTTP/2 over TLS, which makes encryption de facto mandatory.60

Criticisms

Development process

The FreeBSD and Varnish developer Poul-Henning Kamp asserts that the standard was prepared on an unrealistically short schedule, ruling out any basis for the new HTTP/2 other than the SPDY protocol and resulting in other missed opportunities for improvement. Kamp criticizes the protocol itself for being inconsistent and having needless, overwhelming complexity. He also states that the protocol violates the protocol layering principle, for example by duplicating flow control that belongs in the transport layer (TCP). He also suggested that the new protocol should have removed HTTP Cookies, introducing a breaking change.61

Encryption

Initially, some members[who?] of the Working Group tried to introduce an encryption requirement in the protocol. This faced criticism.

Critics stated that encryption has non-negligible computing costs and that many HTTP applications actually have no need for encryption and their providers have no desire to spend additional resources on it. Encryption proponents have stated that this encryption overhead is negligible in practice.62 Poul-Henning Kamp has criticized the IETF for hastily standardizing Google's SPDY prototype as HTTP/2 due to political considerations.636465 The criticism of the agenda of mandatory encryption within the existing certificate framework is not new, nor is it unique to members of the open-source community – a Cisco employee stated in 2013 that the present certificate model is not compatible with small devices like routers, because the present model requires not only annual enrollment and remission of non-trivial fees for each certificate, but must be continually repeated on an annual basis.66 In the end the Working Group did not reach consensus over the mandatory encryption,67 although most client implementations require it, which makes encryption a de facto requirement.

The HTTP/2 protocol also faced criticism for not supporting opportunistic encryption, a measure against passive monitoring similar to the STARTTLS mechanism that has long been available in other Internet protocols like SMTP. Critics have stated that the HTTP/2 proposal goes in violation of IETF's own RFC 7258 "Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack", which also has a status of Best Current Practice 188.68 RFC7258/BCP188 mandates that passive monitoring be considered as an attack, and protocols designed by IETF should take steps to protect against passive monitoring (for example, through the use of opportunistic encryption). A number of specifications for opportunistic encryption of HTTP/2 have been provided,697071 of which draft-nottingham-http2-encryption was adopted as an official work item of the working group, leading to the publication of RFC 8164 in May 2017.

TCP head-of-line blocking

Although the design of HTTP/2 effectively addresses the HTTP-transaction-level head-of-line blocking problem by allowing multiple concurrent HTTP transactions, all those transactions are multiplexed over a single TCP connection, meaning that any packet-level head-of-line blocking of the TCP stream simultaneously blocks all transactions being accessed via that connection. This head-of-line blocking in HTTP/2 is now widely regarded as a design flaw, and much of the effort behind QUIC and HTTP/3 has been devoted to reduce head-of-line blocking issues.7273

Server-side support

Main article: Comparison of web server software

Server software

The following web servers support HTTP/2:

Content delivery networks

  • Akamai was the first major CDN to support HTTP/2 and HTTP/2 Server Push.
  • Microsoft Azure supports HTTP/2.
  • PageCDN supports HTTP/2 out of the box and provides user-interface to setup HTTP/2 Server Push in CDN dashboard.103
  • CDN77 supports HTTP/2 using nginx (August 20, 2015).
  • Cloudflare supports HTTP/2 using nginx with SPDY as a fallback for browsers without support, whilst maintaining all security and performance services.104 Cloudflare was the first major CDN to support HTTP/2 Server Push.105
  • AWS CloudFront supports HTTP/2106 since September 7, 2016.
  • Fastly supports HTTP/2 including Server Push.107
  • Imperva Incapsula CDN supports HTTP/2.108 The implementation includes support for WAF and DDoS mitigation features as well.
  • KeyCDN supports HTTP/2 using nginx (October 6, 2015). HTTP/2 Test is a test page to verify if your server supports HTTP/2.
  • BrandSSL supports HTTP/2.
  • Voxility supports HTTP/2 using nginx since July, 2016. The implementation comes in support for Cloud DDoS mitigation services.109
  • StackPath supports HTTP/2.

Implementations

See also

References

  1. Bright, Peter (February 18, 2015). "HTTP/2 finished, coming to browsers within weeks". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on March 30, 2019. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/http2-finished-coming-to-browsers-within-weeks/ ↩

  2. Cimpanu, Catalin (November 12, 2018). "HTTP-over-QUIC to be renamed HTTP/3". ZDNet. Retrieved November 19, 2018. https://www.zdnet.com/article/http-over-quic-to-be-renamed-http3/ ↩

  3. Thomson, M.; Belshe, M.; Peon, R. (November 29, 2014). "Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16". Ietf Datatracker. HTTPbis Working Group. Retrieved February 11, 2015. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16 ↩

  4. "HTTP (httpbis)". Internet Engineering Task Force Datatracker. Archived from the original on January 6, 2024. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/ ↩

  5. "IETF HTTP Working Group". httpwg.org. Retrieved December 15, 2019. https://httpwg.org/ ↩

  6. "History for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16". IETF. Retrieved January 3, 2015. 2014-12-16 IESG state changed to Publication Requested https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2/history/#history-404477 ↩

  7. Raymor, Brian (August 6, 2014). "Wait for it – HTTP/2 begins Working Group Last Call!". Microsoft Open Technologies. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved October 17, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20141006091749/https://msopentech.com/blog/2014/08/06/wait-for-it-http2-begins-working-group-last-call/ ↩

  8. Belshe, M.; Peon, R.; Thomson, M. (May 2015). Thomson, M (ed.). "RFC 7540 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)". IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC7540. Retrieved May 14, 2015. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540 ↩

  9. ""HTTP/2" | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc". canIuse.com. Retrieved April 3, 2023. https://caniuse.com/?search=HTTP/2 ↩

  10. ""HTTP/2" | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc". canIuse.com. Retrieved April 3, 2023. https://caniuse.com/?search=HTTP/2 ↩

  11. "Usage of HTTP/2 for websites". World Wide Web Technology Surveys. W3Techs. Retrieved July 10, 2023. https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-http2/all/all ↩

  12. Cimpanu, Catalin (November 12, 2018). "HTTP-over-QUIC to be renamed HTTP/3". ZDNet. Retrieved November 19, 2018. https://www.zdnet.com/article/http-over-quic-to-be-renamed-http3/ ↩

  13. Bishop, Mike (July 9, 2019). "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3 (HTTP/3)". Ietf Datatracker. Retrieved July 31, 2019. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-http-22 ↩

  14. ""HTTP/2" | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc". canIuse.com. Retrieved April 3, 2023. https://caniuse.com/?search=HTTP/2 ↩

  15. Cimpanu, Catalin (26 September 2019). "Cloudflare, Google Chrome, and Firefox add HTTP/3 support". ZDNet. Retrieved 27 September 2019. https://www.zdnet.com/article/cloudflare-google-chrome-and-firefox-add-http3-support/ ↩

  16. "HTTP (httpbis)". Internet Engineering Task Force Datatracker. Archived from the original on January 6, 2024. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/ ↩

  17. Ilya Grigorik. "Chapter 12: HTTP 2.0". High Performance Browser Networking. O'Reilly Media, Inc. HTTP/2 does not modify the application semantics of HTTP in any way https://hpbn.co/http2/ ↩

  18. Ilya Grigorik. "Chapter 12: HTTP 2.0". High Performance Browser Networking. O'Reilly Media, Inc. HTTP/2 does not modify the application semantics of HTTP in any way https://hpbn.co/http2/ ↩

  19. Pratt, Michael. "Apiux". apiux.com. Retrieved March 19, 2014. http://apiux.com/2013/07/23/http2-0-initial-draft-released ↩

  20. Dio Synodinos (November 2012). "HTTP 2.0 First Draft Published". InfoQ.com. C4Media Inc. https://www.infoq.com/news/2012/11/http20-first-draft ↩

  21. Javier Garza (October 2017). "How does HTTP/2 solve the Head of Line blocking (HOL) issue". https://community.akamai.com/customers/s/article/How-does-HTTP-2-solve-the-Head-of-Line-blocking-HOL-issue?language=en_US ↩

  22. Belshe, Mike; Thomson, Martin; Peon, Roberto (May 2015). Thomson, M. (ed.). "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)". tools.ietf.org. doi:10.17487/RFC7540. Retrieved November 17, 2017. HTTP/2 uses DATA frames to carry message payloads. The "chunked" transfer encoding defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC7230] MUST NOT be used in HTTP/2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540 ↩

  23. Sebastian Anthony (March 28, 2012). "S&M vs. SPDY: Microsoft and Google battle over the future of HTTP 2.0". ExtremeTech. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/124153-sm-vs-spdy-microsoft-and-google-battle-over-the-future-of-http-2-0 ↩

  24. Grigorik, Ilya. "Life beyond HTTP 1.1: Google's SPDY". https://www.igvita.com/2011/04/07/life-beyond-http-11-googles-spdy/ ↩

  25. Sebastian Anthony (March 28, 2012). "S&M vs. SPDY: Microsoft and Google battle over the future of HTTP 2.0". ExtremeTech. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/124153-sm-vs-spdy-microsoft-and-google-battle-over-the-future-of-http-2-0 ↩

  26. Willy Tarreau; Amos Jeffries; Adrien de Croy; Poul-Henning Kamp (March 29, 2012). "Proposal for a Network-Friendly HTTP Upgrade". Network Working Group. Internet Engineering Task Force. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00 ↩

  27. Doug Beaver (July 15, 2012). "HTTP2 Expression of Interest" (mailing list). W3C. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JulSep/0251.html ↩

  28. Dio Synodinos (November 30, 2012). "HTTP/2 First Draft Published". InfoQ. https://www.infoq.com/news/2012/11/http20-first-draft ↩

  29. Grigorik, Ilya. "Life beyond HTTP 1.1: Google's SPDY". https://www.igvita.com/2011/04/07/life-beyond-http-11-googles-spdy/ ↩

  30. Ilya, Grigorik (2015). HTTP/2 : a new excerpt from high performance browser networking (May 2015, First ed.). Sebastopol, Calif.: O'Reilly Media. pp. 211–224. ISBN 9781491932483. OCLC 1039459460. 9781491932483 ↩

  31. "SPDY: An experimental protocol for a faster web". The Chromium Projects. https://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper ↩

  32. Ilya, Grigorik (2015). HTTP/2 : a new excerpt from high performance browser networking (May 2015, First ed.). Sebastopol, Calif.: O'Reilly Media. pp. 211–224. ISBN 9781491932483. OCLC 1039459460. 9781491932483 ↩

  33. Chris Bentzel; Bence Béky (February 9, 2015). "Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY". Chromium Blog. Update: To better align with Chrome's release cycle, SPDY and NPN support will be removed with the release of Chrome 51. https://blog.chromium.org/2015/02/hello-http2-goodbye-spdy.html ↩

  34. "API Deprecations and Removals in Chrome 51". TL;DR: Support for HTTP/2 is widespread enough that SPDY/3.1 support can be dropped. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/04/chrome-51-deprecations?hl=en#remove-support-for-spdy31 ↩

  35. Shadrin, Nick (June 7, 2016). "Supporting HTTP/2 for Google Chrome Users | NGINX". NGINX. Retrieved July 10, 2017. https://www.nginx.com/blog/supporting-http2-google-chrome-users/ ↩

  36. "HTTP (httpbis)". Internet Engineering Task Force Datatracker. Archived from the original on January 6, 2024. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/ ↩

  37. Nottingham, Mark (June 7, 2014). "RFC2616 is Dead". Retrieved September 20, 2014. https://www.mnot.net/blog/2014/06/07/rfc2616_is_dead ↩

  38. "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-00". December 20, 2007. Retrieved September 20, 2014. //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-00 ↩

  39. "Security Requirements for HTTP: draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-00.txt". January 23, 2008. Retrieved September 20, 2014. //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-00 ↩

  40. Nottingham, Mark (January 24, 2012). "Rechartering HTTPbis". Retrieved September 20, 2014. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JanMar/0098.html ↩

  41. Nottingham, Mark (October 14, 2012). "Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 p1 and p2". Retrieved September 20, 2014. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0103.html ↩

  42. Nottingham, Mark (October 23, 2012). "Second Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 p4 to p7". Retrieved September 20, 2014. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0139.html ↩

  43. "SPDY Protocol: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-00". HTTPbis Working Group. November 28, 2012. Retrieved September 20, 2014. //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-00 ↩

  44. Nottingham, Mark (November 30, 2012). "First draft of HTTP/2". Retrieved September 20, 2014. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0447.html ↩

  45. Fielding, Roy T.; Reschke, Julian (June 6, 2014). "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing". Archived from the original on August 13, 2014. Retrieved September 20, 2014. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7230/ ↩

  46. "Last Call: (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing) to Proposed Standard". The IESG. October 21, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2014. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0247.html ↩

  47. "Protocol Action: 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26.txt)". ietf-announce (Mailing list). The IESG. February 12, 2014. Retrieved January 18, 2015. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12461.html ↩

  48. Nottingham, Mark (June 7, 2014). "RFC2616 is Dead". Retrieved September 20, 2014. https://www.mnot.net/blog/2014/06/07/rfc2616_is_dead ↩

  49. The RFC Editor Team (June 6, 2014). "RFC 7230 on Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing". ietf-announce (Mailing list). Retrieved January 18, 2015. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12871.html ↩

  50. Raymor, Brian (August 6, 2014). "Wait for it – HTTP/2 begins Working Group Last Call!". Microsoft Open Technologies. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved October 17, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20141006091749/https://msopentech.com/blog/2014/08/06/wait-for-it-http2-begins-working-group-last-call/ ↩

  51. Nottingham, Mark (August 1, 2014). "Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09". HTTP Working Group. Retrieved September 7, 2014. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014JulSep/1563.html ↩

  52. "History for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16". IETF. Retrieved January 3, 2015. 2014-12-16 IESG state changed to Publication Requested https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2/history/#history-404477 ↩

  53. "Last Call: (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard from The IESG on 2014-12-31". Internet Engineering Task Force. 2014. Retrieved January 1, 2015. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014OctDec/0982.html ↩

  54. "IESG Agenda: 2015-01-22". IETF. Archived from the original on January 15, 2015. Retrieved January 15, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150115201808/https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/ ↩

  55. The IESG (February 17, 2015). "Protocol Action: 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17.txt)". httpbis (Mailing list). Retrieved February 18, 2015. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015JanMar/0478.html ↩

  56. The RFC Editor Team (May 14, 2015). "RFC 7540 on Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)". ietf-announce (Mailing list). https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg14126.html ↩

  57. Friedl, S.; Popov, A.; Langley, A.; Stephan, E. (July 2014). "RFC 7301 - Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension". IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC7301. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7301 ↩

  58. "HTTP/2 Frequently Asked Questions". IETF HTTP Working Group. Retrieved September 8, 2014. https://http2.github.io/faq/#does-http2-require-encryption ↩

  59. "Networking/http2". MozillaWiki. Retrieved September 7, 2014. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Networking/http2 ↩

  60. "HTTP/2 Implementation Status". mnot’s blog. https://www.mnot.net/blog/2015/06/15/http2_implementation_status ↩

  61. Kamp, Poul-Henning (January 6, 2015). "HTTP/2.0 – The IETF is Phoning It In (Bad protocol, bad politics)". ACM Queue. Vol. 13, no. 2. pp. 10–12. doi:10.1145/2732266.2716278. ISSN 1542-7730. /wiki/Poul-Henning_Kamp ↩

  62. Grigorik, Ilya. "Is TLS Fast Yet?". Retrieved December 30, 2015. https://istlsfastyet.com/ ↩

  63. Kamp, Poul-Henning (January 6, 2015). "HTTP/2.0 – The IETF is Phoning It In (Bad protocol, bad politics)". ACM Queue. Vol. 13, no. 2. pp. 10–12. doi:10.1145/2732266.2716278. ISSN 1542-7730. /wiki/Poul-Henning_Kamp ↩

  64. Kamp, Poul-Henning (2015). "Http/2.0". Communications of the ACM. 58 (3): 40. doi:10.1145/2717515. S2CID 20337779. https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2717515 ↩

  65. Kamp, Poul-Henning (January 7, 2015). "Re: Last Call: (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard". [email protected] (Mailing list). Retrieved January 12, 2015. /wiki/Poul-Henning_Kamp ↩

  66. Lear, Eliot (August 25, 2013). "Mandatory encryption *is* theater". [email protected] (Mailing list). Retrieved January 26, 2015. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/0909.html ↩

  67. "HTTP/2 Frequently Asked Questions". IETF HTTP Working Group. Retrieved September 8, 2014. https://http2.github.io/faq/#does-http2-require-encryption ↩

  68. Murenin, Constantine A. (January 9, 2015). "Re: Last Call: (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard". [email protected] (Mailing list). Retrieved January 12, 2015. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015JanMar/0106.html ↩

  69. Paul Hoffman. "Minimal Unauthenticated Encryption (MUE) for HTTP-2: draft-hoffman-httpbis-minimal-unauth-enc-01". Internet Engineering Task Force. //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-httpbis-minimal-unauth-enc-01 ↩

  70. Mark Nottingham; Martin Thomson. "Opportunistic Encryption for HTTP URIs: draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03". Internet Engineering Task Force. //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03 ↩

  71. Mark Nottingham; Martin Thomson. "Opportunistic Security for HTTP: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-01". Ietf Datatracker. Internet Engineering Task Force. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-01 ↩

  72. Huston, Geoff (March 4, 2019). "A Quick Look at QUIC". www.circleid.com. Retrieved August 2, 2019. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190304_a_quick_look_at_quic/ ↩

  73. Gal, Shauli (June 22, 2017). "The Full Picture on HTTP/2 and HOL Blocking". Medium. Retrieved August 3, 2019. https://engineering.salesforce.com/the-full-picture-on-http-2-and-hol-blocking-7f964b34d205 ↩

  74. "http/2 module for apache httpd". Retrieved July 28, 2015. https://icing.github.io/mod_h2/ ↩

  75. "Apache 2.4.17 release changelog". Retrieved August 22, 2017. https://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/CHANGES_2.4.17 ↩

  76. Matthew Steele (June 19, 2014). "mod_spdy is now an Apache project". Google Developers Blog. https://googledevelopers.blogspot.de/2014/06/modspdy-is-now-apache-project.html ↩

  77. "Log of /httpd/mod_spdy". svn.apache.org. Retrieved February 3, 2017. https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_spdy/?view=log ↩

  78. "Apache Tomcat Migration". Retrieved July 29, 2016. https://tomcat.apache.org/migration-9.html#HTTP/2_support_added ↩

  79. "Apache Traffic Server Downloads". trafficserver.apache.org. September 21, 2015. https://trafficserver.apache.org/downloads ↩

  80. Server, Caddy Web (March 23, 2016). "Caddy 2 - The Ultimate Server with Automatic HTTPS". caddyserver.com. Retrieved August 8, 2020. https://caddyserver.com/ ↩

  81. "Charles 4 has HTTP/2". Public Object. August 2, 2016. Retrieved October 12, 2020. https://publicobject.com/2016/08/02/charles-4-has-http2/ ↩

  82. "3 Simple Steps to Bring HTTP/2 Performance to Legacy Web Applications". September 22, 2015. https://blogs.citrix.com/2015/08/06/3-simple-steps-to-bring-http2-performance-to-legacy-web-applications/ ↩

  83. "Sucuri += HTTP/2 — Announcing HTTP/2 Support". Sucuri. November 27, 2015. Retrieved December 5, 2015. https://blog.sucuri.net/2015/11/sucuri-announcing-http2-support.html ↩

  84. Robert Haynes. "Goodbye SPDY, Hello HTTP/2". F5 Networks. Retrieved September 18, 2015. https://devcentral.f5.com/articles/goodbye-spdy-hello-http2 ↩

  85. Risov Chakrabortty (July 5, 2016). "New features, capabilities added to Barracuda Web Application Firewall". Barracuda Networks. https://blog.barracuda.com/2016/07/05/new-features-capabilities-added-to-barracuda-web-application-firewall ↩

  86. "H2O - the optimized HTTP/2 server". h2o.examp1e.net. https://h2o.examp1e.net/ ↩

  87. "What's New in HAProxy 1.8". haproxy.com. November 2017. Retrieved February 9, 2018. https://www.haproxy.com/blog/whats-new-haproxy-1-8/ ↩

  88. "Jetty change log". Eclipse Foundation. May 28, 2015. Retrieved May 28, 2015. https://git.eclipse.org/c/jetty/org.eclipse.jetty.project.git/tree/VERSION.txt ↩

  89. "Feature #2813: Support for HTTP/2 protocol", Lighttpd https://redmine.lighttpd.net/issues/2813 ↩

  90. "LSWS 5.0 Is Out – Support for HTTP/2, ESI, LiteMage Cache". April 17, 2015. https://blog.litespeedtech.com/2015/04/17/lsws-5-0-is-out-support-for-http2-esi-litemage-cache/ ↩

  91. Rob Trace; David Walp (October 8, 2014). "HTTP/2: The Long-Awaited Sequel". MSDN IEBlog. Microsoft Corporation. https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2014/10/08/http-2-the-long-awaited-sequel.aspx ↩

  92. "Netty.news: Netty 4.1.0.Final released". netty.io. Retrieved June 1, 2016. https://netty.io/news/2016/05/26/4-1-0-Final.html ↩

  93. "nginx changelog". www.nginx.com. September 22, 2015. https://nginx.org/en/CHANGES ↩

  94. "Changes with nginx 1.14.2". nginx.org. December 4, 2018. Retrieved September 27, 2019. https://nginx.org/en/CHANGES-1.14 ↩

  95. Foundation, Node js (November 20, 2018). "Node v8.13.0 (LTS)". Node.js. Retrieved June 5, 2019. https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v8.13.0/ ↩

  96. "Node http2". www.github.com. July 26, 2016. https://github.com/molnarg/node-http2 ↩

  97. "Node v8.4.0 (Current)". nodejs.org. August 15, 2017. https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v8.4.0/ ↩

  98. "ASP.NET Core 2.2.0-preview1: HTTP/2 in Kestrel". Retrieved April 6, 2021. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/aspnet/asp-net-core-2-2-0-preview1-http-2-in-kestrel/ ↩

  99. "OpenLiteSpeed 1.4.5 change log". LiteSpeed Technologies, Inc. February 26, 2015. Retrieved February 26, 2015. https://open.litespeedtech.com/mediawiki/index.php/Release_Log/1.x#V1.4.5 ↩

  100. "Pulse Virtual Traffic Manager". August 22, 2017. https://www.pulsesecure.net/vtm/ ↩

  101. "Radware Combines an Integrated HTTP/2 Gateway with its Leading Fastview Technology to Provide Web Server Platforms Increased Acceleration". July 20, 2015. https://www.radware.com/newsevents/pressreleases/radware-alteon-provides-fastest-website-acceleration/ ↩

  102. "www.shimmercat.com". March 23, 2016. Archived from the original on March 31, 2022. Retrieved March 23, 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20220331025648/https://www.shimmercat.com/ ↩

  103. "Why PageCDN, and what problem does it solve?". PageCDN. Retrieved January 11, 2020. https://pagecdn.com/about/why ↩

  104. "HTTP/2 is here! Goodbye SPDY? Not quite yet". CloudFlare. Retrieved December 5, 2015. https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-http2/ ↩

  105. Krasnov, Vlad (April 28, 2016). "Announcing Support for HTTP/2 Server Push". CloudFlare. Retrieved May 18, 2016. https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-support-for-http-2-server-push-2/ ↩

  106. "Amazon CloudFront now supports HTTP/2". Amazon Web Services, Inc. Retrieved September 8, 2016. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/09/amazon-cloudfront-now-supports-http2/ ↩

  107. "Announcing Limited Availability for HTTP/2". June 30, 2016. Retrieved August 22, 2017. https://www.fastly.com/blog/announcing-limited-availability-http2 ↩

  108. "HTTP/2 is here: What You Need to Know". Retrieved November 1, 2015. https://www.imperva.com/blog/http2-is-here-what-you-need-to-know/ ↩

  109. "HTTP/2 more at risk to cyber attacks?". Information Age. August 3, 2016. Retrieved February 4, 2019. https://www.information-age.com/http2-more-risk-cyber-attacks-123461771/ ↩