Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)

Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012) by _delirium on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @05:02PM (#6015473)

There's some discussion in this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JulSep/...

in short,

   the need for a Session header to replace the use of Cookies
   for basic session management

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012) by cldr on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @05:22PM (#6015611)

So is that just cookies by another name?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012) by Qantourisc on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @05:43PM (#6015757)

Cookies with an expire of session and secure flag set: yes. But this should be more secure, and stored for 1 session implicitly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012) by jimktrains2 on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @06:10PM (#6015949)

And in theory less data, right? a session ID doesn't need to store the kilobytes that cookies do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012) by yalogin on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @06:43PM (#6016195)

Why can't there be multiple sessions for different functionalities? I am not sure people are going to relinquish the cookie concept. All the sessions are doing is have the "cookies" transported as part of the HTTP message and not as a separate file (payload)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012) by jimktrains2 on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @09:11PM (#6016804)

I'm not sure I understand you.

I'm talking about a Session-ID header that'd have a 128bit (say) max length or something. Not something that has a few kb limit like a cookie.

Also, a GET request wouldn't send a payload so I'm not sure what you mean.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012) by jessaustin on Friday July 12, 2013 @10:08AM (#6032622)

Cookies are sent in the Cookie and Set-Cookie headers. No separate files.

[ Parent | on HN ]