HTTP/2

HTTP/2 (originally named HTTP/2.0) is a major revision of the HTTP network protocol used by the World Wide Web. It was derived from the earlier experimental SPDY protocol, originally developed by Google.[1][2] HTTP/2 was developed by the HTTP Working Group (also called httpbis, where "bis" means "twice") of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).[3][4][5] HTTP/2 is the first new version of HTTP since HTTP/1.1, which was standardized in RFC 2068 in 1997. The Working Group presented HTTP/2 to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) for consideration as a Proposed Standard in December 2014,[6][7] and IESG approved it to publish as Proposed Standard on February 17, 2015 (and was updated in February 2020 in regard to TLS 1.3).[8][9] The HTTP/2 specification was published as RFC 7540 on May 14, 2015.[10]

HTTP/2
International standardRFC 7540
Developed byIETF
IntroducedMay 14, 2015 (2015-05-14)
Superseded byHTTP/3

The standardization effort was supported by Chrome, Opera, Firefox,[11] Internet Explorer 11, Safari, Amazon Silk, and Edge browsers.[12] Most major browsers had added HTTP/2 support by the end of 2015.[13] About 98% of web browsers used have the capability,[14] while according to W3Techs, as of January 2021, 50.2% of the top 10 million websites supported HTTP/2.[15]

Its proposed successor is HTTP/3, a major revision that builds on the concepts established by HTTP/2.[16][2] Support for HTTP/3 was added to Chrome in September 2019 and Safari 14, on macOS Big Sur, was the first browser with HTTP/3 enabled by default, in 2020, otherwise it's not yet on by default in any browser, while there's non-default support in stable versions of Chrome and Firefox and HTTP/3 can be enabled.[17][18][19]

Goals
HTTP/2 Explained by Daniel Stenberg

The working group charter mentions several goals and issues of concern:[4]

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.[20] 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.[20]

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.[21]

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.[22] 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.[23] HTTP/2 no longer supports HTTP/1.1's chunked transfer encoding mechanism, as it provides its own, more efficient, mechanisms for data streaming.[24]

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.[25] 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".[26]

The HTTP Working Group considered Google's SPDY protocol, Microsoft's HTTP Speed+Mobility proposal (SPDY based),[25] and Network-Friendly HTTP Upgrade.[27] In July 2012, Facebook provided feedback on each of the proposals and recommended HTTP/2 be based on SPDY.[28] The initial draft of HTTP/2 was published in November 2012 and was based on a straight copy of SPDY.[29]

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".[26][30] SPDY showed evident improvement over HTTP, with a new page load speedup ranging from 11.81% to 47.7%.[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.[30]

On February 9, 2015, Google announced plans to remove support for SPDY in Chrome in favor of support for HTTP/2.[32] That took effect, starting with Chrome 51.[33][34]

Encryption

HTTP/2 is defined both for HTTP URIs (i.e. without encryption) and for HTTPS URIs (over TLS using ALPN extension[35] where TLS 1.2 or newer is required).[36]

Although the standard itself does not require usage of encryption,[37] all major client implementations (Firefox,[38] Chrome, Safari, Opera, IE, Edge) have stated that they will only support HTTP/2 over TLS, which makes encryption de facto mandatory.[39]

Criticisms

HTTP/2's development process and the protocol itself have faced criticism.

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.[40] Kamp criticizes the protocol itself for being inconsistent and having needless, overwhelming complexity.[40] He also states that the protocol violates the protocol layering principle,[40] for example by duplicating flow control that belongs in the transport layer (TCP). Most concerns, however, have been related to encryption issues.

Mandatory encryption computational cost and certificate availability

Initially, some members 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 have actually 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.[41] Poul-Henning Kamp has criticised IETF for following a particular political agenda with HTTP/2.[40][42][43] 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.[44] Working Group finally did not reach consensus over the mandatory encryption,[37] although most client implementations require it, which makes encryption a de facto requirement.

Lack of opportunistic encryption

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 RFC7258 "Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack"], which also has a status of Best Current Practice 188.[45] 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,[46][47][48] 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.[49][50]

Development milestones
DateMilestone[4]
December 20, 2007[51][52]First HTTP/1.1 Revision Internet Draft
January 23, 2008[53]First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
Early 2012[54]Call for Proposals for HTTP 2.0
October 14 – November 25, 2012[55][56]Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 Revision
November 28, 2012[57][58]First WG draft of HTTP 2.0, based upon draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00
Held/Eliminated Working Group Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
September 2013[59][60]Submit HTTP/1.1 Revision to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
February 12, 2014[61]IESG approved HTTP/1.1 Revision to publish as a Proposed Standard
June 6, 2014[51][62]Publish HTTP/1.1 Revision as RFC 7230, 7231, 7232, 7233, 7234, 7235
August 1, 2014 – September 1, 2014[7][63]Working Group Last call for HTTP/2
December 16, 2014[6]Submit HTTP/2 to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
December 31, 2014 – January 14, 2015[64]IETF Last Call for HTTP/2
January 22, 2015[65]IESG telechat to review HTTP/2 as Proposed Standard
February 17, 2015[8]IESG approved HTTP/2 to publish as Proposed Standard
May 14, 2015[66]Publish HTTP/2 as RFC 7540
February 2020RFC 8740: HTTP/2 with TLS 1.3

Server-side support
Main article: Comparison of web server software

Server software

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.[96]
  • 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.[97] Cloudflare was the first major CDN to support HTTP/2 Server Push.[98]
  • AWS CloudFront supports HTTP/2[99] since September 7, 2016.
  • Fastly supports HTTP/2 including Server Push.[100]
  • Imperva Incapsula CDN supports HTTP/2.[101] 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.
  • Voxility supports HTTP/2 using nginx since July, 2016. The implementation comes in support for Cloud DDoS mitigation services.[102]
  • StackPath supports HTTP/2.

Implementations

See also

References
  1. Bright, Peter (February 18, 2015). "HTTP/2 finished, coming to browsers within weeks". Ars Technica.
  2. Cimpanu, Catalin. "HTTP-over-QUIC to be renamed HTTP/3 | ZDNet". ZDNet. Retrieved November 19, 2018.
  3. Thomson, M. (ed.), Belshe M. and R. Peon. "Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16". ietf.org. HTTPbis Working Group. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
  4. "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)". Internet Engineering Task Force. 2012.
  5. "IETF HTTP Working Group". IETF HTTP Working Group. Retrieved December 15, 2019.
  6. "History for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16". IETF. Retrieved January 3, 2015. 2014-12-16 IESG state changed to Publication Requested
  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.
  8. 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.
  9. Mark Nottingham (February 18, 2015). "HTTP/2 Approved". ietf.org. Internet Engineering Task Force. Retrieved March 8, 2015.
  10. "RFC 7540 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)". IETF. May 2015. Retrieved May 14, 2015.
  11. "See what's new in Firefox!". www.mozilla.org. Mozilla Foundation. February 2015.
  12. "Can the rise of SPDY threaten HTTP?". blog.restlet.com. Restlet, Inc. October 2011. Archived from the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved July 23, 2012.
  13. "HTTP2 browser support". Retrieved March 9, 2017.
  14. "Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc". caniuse.com. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  15. "Usage of HTTP/2 for websites". World Wide Web Technology Surveys. W3Techs. Retrieved January 16, 2021.
  16. Bishop, Mike (July 9, 2019). "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3 (HTTP/3)". tools.ietf.org. Retrieved July 31, 2019.
  17. "Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc". caniuse.com. Retrieved January 19, 2020.
  18. Daniel, Stenberg. "Daniel Stenberg announces HTTP/3 support in Firefox Nightly". Twitter. Retrieved November 5, 2019.
  19. Cimpanu, Catalin (26 September 2019). "Cloudflare, Google Chrome, and Firefox add HTTP/3 support". ZDNet. Retrieved 27 September 2019.
  20. 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
  21. Pratt, Michael. "Apiux". apiux.com. Retrieved March 19, 2014.
  22. Dio Synodinos (November 2012). "HTTP 2.0 First Draft Published". InfoQ.com. C4Media Inc.
  23. Javier Garza (October 2017). "How does HTTP/2 solve the Head of Line blocking (HOL) issue".
  24. Belshe, Mike; Thomson, Martin; Peon, Roberto (May 2015). "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)". tools.ietf.org. 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
  25. Sebastian Anthony (March 28, 2012). "S&M vs. SPDY: Microsoft and Google battle over the future of HTTP 2.0". ExtremeTech.
  26. Grigorik, Ilya. "Life beyond HTTP 1.1: Google's SPDY".
  27. 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.
  28. Doug Beaver (July 15, 2012). "HTTP2 Expression of Interest" (mailing list). W3C.
  29. Dio Synodinos (November 30, 2012). "HTTP/2 First Draft Published". InfoQ.
  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.
  31. "SPDY: An experimental protocol for a faster web". The Chromium Projects.
  32. 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.
  33. "API Deprecations and Removals in Chrome 51". TL;DR: Support for HTTP/2 is widespread enough that SPDY/3.1 support can be dropped.
  34. Shadrin, Nick (June 7, 2016). "Supporting HTTP/2 for Google Chrome Users | NGINX". NGINX. Retrieved July 10, 2017.
  35. "RFC 7301 - Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension". IETF. July 2014.
  36. Belshe, M.; Peon, R.; Thomson, M. "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2, Use of TLS Features". Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  37. "HTTP/2 Frequently Asked Questions". IETF HTTP Working Group. Retrieved September 8, 2014.
  38. "Networking/http2". MozillaWiki. Retrieved September 7, 2014.
  39. "HTTP/2 Implementation Status". mnot’s blog.
  40. Kamp, Poul-Henning (January 6, 2015). "HTTP/2.0 – The IETF is Phoning It In (Bad protocol, bad politics)". ACM Queue. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  41. Grigorik, Ilya. "Is TLS Fast Yet?". Retrieved December 30, 2015.
  42. Kamp, P. H. (2015). "Http/2.0". Communications of the ACM. 58 (3): 40. doi:10.1145/2717515.
  43. Kamp, Poul-Henning (January 7, 2015). "Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard". ietf-http-wg@w3.org (Mailing list). Retrieved January 12, 2015.
  44. Lear, Eliot (August 25, 2013). "Mandatory encryption *is* theater". ietf-http-wg@w3.org (Mailing list). Retrieved January 26, 2015.
  45. Murenin, Constantine A. (January 9, 2015). "Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard". ietf-http-wg@w3.org (Mailing list). Retrieved January 12, 2015.
  46. Paul Hoffman. "Minimal Unauthenticated Encryption (MUE) for HTTP-2: draft-hoffman-httpbis-minimal-unauth-enc-01". Internet Engineering Task Force.
  47. Mark Nottingham; Martin Thomson. "Opportunistic Encryption for HTTP URIs: draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03". Internet Engineering Task Force.
  48. Mark Nottingham; Martin Thomson. "Opportunistic Security for HTTP: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-01". Internet Engineering Task Force.
  49. Huston, Geoff (March 4, 2019). "A Quick Look at QUIC". www.circleid.com. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
  50. Gal, Shauli (June 22, 2017). "The Full Picture on HTTP/2 and HOL Blocking". Medium. Retrieved August 3, 2019.
  51. Nottingham, Mark (June 7, 2014). "RFC2616 is Dead". Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  52. "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-00". December 20, 2007. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  53. "Security Requirements for HTTP: draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-00.txt". January 23, 2008. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  54. Nottingham, Mark (January 24, 2012). "Rechartering HTTPbis". Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  55. Nottingham, Mark (October 14, 2012). "Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 p1 and p2". Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  56. Nottingham, Mark (October 23, 2012). "Second Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 p4 to p7". Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  57. "SPDY Protocol: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-00". HTTPbis Working Group. November 28, 2012. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  58. Nottingham, Mark (November 30, 2012). "First draft of HTTP/2". Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  59. "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing". Archived from the original on August 13, 2014. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  60. "Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing) to Proposed Standard". The IESG. October 21, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  61. "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.
  62. 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.
  63. 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.
  64. "Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard from The IESG on 2014-12-31". Internet Engineering Task Force. 2014. Retrieved January 1, 2015.
  65. "IESG Agenda: 2015-01-22". IETF. Archived from the original on January 15, 2015. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
  66. The RFC Editor Team (May 14, 2015). "RFC 7540 on Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)". ietf-announce (Mailing list).
  67. "http/2 module for apache httpd". Retrieved July 28, 2015.
  68. "Apache 2.4.17 release changelog". Retrieved August 22, 2017.
  69. Matthew Steele (June 19, 2014). "mod_spdy is now an Apache project". Google Developers Blog.
  70. "Log of /httpd/mod_spdy". svn.apache.org. Retrieved February 3, 2017.
  71. "Apache Tomcat Migration". Retrieved July 29, 2016.
  72. "Apache Traffic Server Downloads". trafficserver.apache.org. September 21, 2015.
  73. Server, Caddy Web (March 23, 2016). "Caddy 2 - The Ultimate Server with Automatic HTTPS". caddyserver.com. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  74. "Charles 4 has HTTP/2". Public Object. August 2, 2016. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
  75. "3 Simple Steps to Bring HTTP/2 Performance to Legacy Web Applications". September 22, 2015.
  76. "Sucuri += HTTP/2 — Announcing HTTP/2 Support". Sucuri. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  77. Robert Haynes. "Goodbye SPDY, Hello HTTP/2". F5 Networks. Retrieved September 18, 2015.
  78. Risov Chakrabortty. "New features, capabilities added to Barracuda Web Application Firewall". Barracuda Networks.
  79. "H2O - the optimized HTTP/2 server". h2o.examp1e.net.
  80. "What's New in HAProxy 1.8". haproxy.com. Retrieved February 9, 2018.
  81. "Jetty change log". Eclipse Foundation. May 28, 2015. Retrieved May 28, 2015.
  82. "Feature #2813: Support for HTTP/2 protocol", Lighttpd
  83. "LSWS 5.0 Is Out – Support for HTTP/2, ESI, LiteMage Cache". April 17, 2015.
  84. Rob Trace; David Walp (October 8, 2014). "HTTP/2: The Long-Awaited Sequel". MSDN IEBlog. Microsoft Corporation.
  85. "Netty.news: Netty 4.1.0.Final released". netty.io. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  86. "nginx changelog". www.nginx.com. September 22, 2015.
  87. "Changes with nginx 1.14.2". nginx.org. December 4, 2018. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  88. Foundation, Node js. "Node v8.13.0 (LTS)". Node.js. Retrieved June 5, 2019.
  89. "Node http2". www.github.com. July 26, 2016.
  90. "Node v8.4.0 (Current)". nodejs.org. August 15, 2017.
  91. "ASP.NET Core 2.2.0-preview1 now available". Retrieved August 22, 2018.
  92. "OpenLiteSpeed 1.4.5 change log". LiteSpeed Technologies, Inc. February 26, 2015. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
  93. "Pulse Virtual Traffic Manager". August 22, 2017.
  94. "Radware Combines an Integrated HTTP/2 Gateway with its Leading Fastview Technology to Provide Web Server Platforms Increased Acceleration". July 20, 2015.
  95. "www.shimmercat.com". March 23, 2016.
  96. "Why PageCDN, and what problem does it solve?". PageCDN. Retrieved January 11, 2020.
  97. "HTTP/2 is here! Goodbye SPDY? Not quite yet". CloudFlare. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  98. Krasnov, Vlad (April 28, 2016). "Announcing Support for HTTP/2 Server Push". CloudFlare. Retrieved May 18, 2016.
  99. "Amazon CloudFront now supports HTTP/2". Amazon Web Services, Inc. Retrieved September 8, 2016.
  100. "Announcing Limited Availability for HTTP/2". Retrieved August 22, 2017.
  101. "HTTP/2 is here: What You Need to Know". Retrieved November 1, 2015.
  102. "HTTP/2 more at risk to cyber attacks?". Information Age. August 3, 2016. Retrieved February 4, 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.