As an end user, I already get satisfactory performance with the existing protcols. What slows things down is the neverending gratuitous Javascript and automatic connections not initiated by the user for the purposes of advertising, tracking and telemetry. Even viewing these RFCs in the best light, as "improvements", it stands to reason that end users will not be the ones who benefit most (if at all) from them. It is reminiscient of personal computers in decades past that kept increasing in speed and power only to have those increases usurped by gas-like software developed on the latest, most expensive workstations by software companies aiming to license newer versions, in some cases under agreements for pre-installation with OEMS aiming to sell newer hardware. "Gas-like" because over time it seemed to expand to fill available space. The newer PCs could do more, faster, behind the scenes, but the user experience did not change; for the user, it generally still took the same amount of time to do the same routine tasks. To put it another way, these "improvements" in well-established transport protocols may mean "tech" companies will be better able to exploit end users, e.g., more data collected and more advertising served without performance degradation, perhaps leading to more commerce, but not that end users will be better able to avoid exploitation, e.g. through improved privacy and security from "tech" companies and their advertiser customers.
> Even viewing these RFCs in the best light, as "improvements", it stands to reason that end users will not be the ones who benefit most (if at all) from them.
That's kind of how I see it. A lot of internet protocols have ended up having privacy and security issues, but not so much by design. We saw the problems introduced with HTTP/2 and it appears like we're just doubling down on them instead of trying to find solutions. I guess I'm just nostalgic for the days things were made to benefit internet users rather than the people looking to make money off of them.
