I'm not sure what you mean by "apologist" or what you're trying to say, I'm not the person you're answering to, and I have no dog in this fight.
But you're talking in a very affirmative manner and apparently trying to say that one is "correct" and the other is not, while absolutely ignoring context and usage.
I recommend you either run yourself, or find on the web, a benchmark about not a single HTTP request, but an actual web page, requesting the html, the css, the js, and the images. Don't even need to go modern web, even any old pre 2010 design with no font or anything else fancy will do.
You will see that HTTP 1 and 1.1 are way, way worse at it that HTTP 2. Which is why HTTP 2 was created, and why it should be used. Also the sad joke that was domain rolling to trick simultaneous request per host configurations.
Overall, your point of view doesn't make sense because this is not a winner takes all game. Plenty of server should and do also run HTTP 1 for their usage, notably file servers and the likes. The question to ask is "how many request in parallel do the user need, and how important that they all finish as close to each other as possible instead of one after the other".
You can transfer as many requests in parallel with HTTP/1.1 as you like by simply establishing more TCP connections to the server. The problem is that browsers traditionally limited the number of concurrent connections per server to 3. There’s also a speed penalty incurred with new connections to a host since initial TCP window sizes start out small, but it’s unclear whether that initial speed penalty significantly degrades the user experience.
The fact that anyone running wrk or hey can coerce a web server to produce hundreds of thousands of RPS and saturate 100Gb links with plain old HTTP/1.1 with connection reuse and parallel threads (assuming of course that your load tester, server, and network are powerful enough) ought to be enough to convince anyone that the protocol is more than capable.
But whether it’s the best one for the real world of thousands of different consumer device agents, flaky networks with huge throughput and latency and error/drop rates, etc. is a different question indeed, and these newer protocols may in fact provide better overall user experiences. Protocols that work well under perfect conditions may not be the right ones for imperfect conditions.
TCP connections are bottlenecked not just by the browser/client, but also at the load-balancer/server. Modulo SO_REUSEPORT, a server can maintain at most 64k active connections, which is far below any reasonable expectation for capacity of concurrent requests. You have to decouple application-level requests from physical-level connections to get any kind of reasonable performance out of a protocol. This has been pretty well understood for decades.
That limitation was overcome over 20 years ago with the invention of Direct Server Return (DSR) technology, since the remote IP becomes that of the actual client. (This also helped relieve pressure on load balancers since they don't need to process return traffic.) Another way to overcome this would be to use netblocks instead of IP addresses on both the load balancers (upstream side) and the server side (so the LB has multiple IPs to connect to and the server to respond from).
The benefit of DSR became mitigated a bit after CGNAT (in the IPv4 space anyway) began to be rolled out, since it can masquerade a large group of clients behind a single IP address. (CGNAT poses other, different problems related to fraud and abuse mitigation.)
Which limit, exactly, are you referring to? Both load balancers and backend servers can juggle millions of concurrent connections nowadays. You mentioned a 64k connection limit but that’s not a hard file descriptor limit, nor does the 65536 port limit apply if the source and/or destination IPs differ.
> Both load balancers and backend servers can juggle millions of concurrent connections nowadays.
Maybe with SO_REUSEPORT, but not in general.
A TCP connection is identified by a 5-tuple that requires a unique port for both the client and server. TCP represents ports as uint16s, which means the max number of possible ports per address is 65536.
tl;dr: 1 server IP address = no more than 64k incoming connections
Yes, I'm aware that 4-tuples must be unique. And so, by having a LB and/or server bind to more than one IP address, you can easily overcome that limit.
It's quite common in Kubernetes deployments, where each server in a separate Pod binds to a separate IP address.
And, as I said before, with DSR, there's a broad diversity of client IPs, so a single server address doesn't typically cause concerns with 4-tuple exhaustion.
That's a lot of mays. One might imagine that before this stuff becomes the latest version of an internet standard, these theoretical qualifications might be proven out, to estimate its impact on the world at large. But it was useful to one massive corporation, so I guess that makes it good enough to supplant what came before for the whole web.
Google did a great deal of research on the question using real-world telemetry before trying it in Chrome and proposing it as a standard to the IETF’s working group. And others including Microsoft and Facebook gave feedback; it wasn’t iterated on in a vacuum. The history is open and well documented and there are metrics that support it. See e.g. https://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper/
But you're talking in a very affirmative manner and apparently trying to say that one is "correct" and the other is not, while absolutely ignoring context and usage.
I recommend you either run yourself, or find on the web, a benchmark about not a single HTTP request, but an actual web page, requesting the html, the css, the js, and the images. Don't even need to go modern web, even any old pre 2010 design with no font or anything else fancy will do.
You will see that HTTP 1 and 1.1 are way, way worse at it that HTTP 2. Which is why HTTP 2 was created, and why it should be used. Also the sad joke that was domain rolling to trick simultaneous request per host configurations.
Overall, your point of view doesn't make sense because this is not a winner takes all game. Plenty of server should and do also run HTTP 1 for their usage, notably file servers and the likes. The question to ask is "how many request in parallel do the user need, and how important that they all finish as close to each other as possible instead of one after the other".
Similarily, HTTP3 is mostly about latency.