

Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox - patrickmcmanus
http://bitsup.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-road-to-http2.html

======
CJefferson
One thing this doesn't seem to answer... Why bother when we already have SPDY?

~~~
gioele
Because SPDY has well known flaws (let's call them design choices) for example
in caching. There have been many discussions in HN about these topics.

Also, because there is no such a thing as "SPDY" what you are referring to is
"SPDY 2 as implemented by Google Chrome and almost fully documented by
Google". SPDY is a work in progress. If you want a real deployment to be
possible, you need to have at least a fully documented basic core that has
been discussed openly, not just an implementation from a corporation subject
to changes whenever internal pressures require it.

~~~
sp332
SPDY is an IETF draft, working toward a ratified standard.
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00>

~~~
gioele
> SPDY is an IETF draft, working toward a ratified standard.
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00>

Now it is, before it was not. And that is exactly my point in my reply: you
cannot take whatever you call "SPDY" at the moment (implementations + wiki
pages) and call it "HTTP 2". You need to document it, propose it, discuss it
openly, accept criticism, fixes and, if needed, radical changes. This is what
is happening now in the HTTPbis working group and is a good thing, but it is
not going to be a rubber-stamping process for SPDY as it is now, I hope.

