1. We already use it plenty, so we have lots of implementations,
2. it's good enough.
Cons:
a. what shall be the form of HTTP IPC URIs? hostnames for http: and https: scheme URIs are kinda out of place in IPC applications (we need something like sys.ipc.arpa, d-bus.arpa, etc),
b. the overhead of HTTP is annoying -- any decent RPC can be significantly more efficient, unless one uses HTTP/2, and maybe even then.
(a) makes me want to write and submit an I-D for HTTP over IPC by using such names as in the parenthetical above.
1. We already use it plenty, so we have lots of implementations,
2. it's good enough.
Cons:
a. what shall be the form of HTTP IPC URIs? hostnames for http: and https: scheme URIs are kinda out of place in IPC applications (we need something like sys.ipc.arpa, d-bus.arpa, etc),
b. the overhead of HTTP is annoying -- any decent RPC can be significantly more efficient, unless one uses HTTP/2, and maybe even then.
(a) makes me want to write and submit an I-D for HTTP over IPC by using such names as in the parenthetical above.
(b) is a non-issue once H2 is widely adopted.
So IMO HTTP is pretty good for IPC.