<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>tptacek</author><text>What does Google&amp;#x27;s involvement in advertising have to do with the design of the SPDY protocol? Can you make a substantive criticism of SPDY based on Google&amp;#x27;s advertising incentives, or is this just innuendo?</text><parent_chain><item><author>steveklabnik</author><text>There were so many people just calling for rubber-stamping SPDY as HTTP 2.0 without any changes that frankly, I feel lucky that we&amp;#x27;re getting revisions at all. The editor of the draft is a good guy, and I trust him to make good changes.&lt;p&gt;I think it&amp;#x27;s pretty ludicrous that so many people are willing to let an advertising company basically re-write the way that every computer on the web talks to each other with very little questioning, but this is the place that we&amp;#x27;re at nowadays. For better or worse, the big vendors guide the standards process. I&amp;#x27;d like to see more involvement from the little guys, but that has its own set of challenges.</text></item><item><author>samwillis</author><text>I understand the motivation to going to a binary protocol for a SPDY inspired HTTP 2.0 but I would have liked to see an ascii based protocol similar to what jgrahamc proposed last year [0]. I thought it was a much cleaner protocol to read and understand, and much more in tune with what the web is supposed to be. Why not keep the clever binary stuff separate in SPDY, endorse it though the IETF and keep HTTP ascii?&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.jgc.org/2012/12/speeding-up-http-with-minimal-protocol.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.jgc.org&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;speeding-up-http-with-minimal-pr...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>HTTP 2.0</title><url>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>aroch</author><text>&amp;gt;I think it&amp;#x27;s pretty ludicrous that so many people are willing to let an advertising company basically re-write the way that every computer on the web talks to each other with very little questioning&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think there&amp;#x27;s very little questioning...in anycase, Google&amp;#x27;s goal is to deliver ads to you in the most efficient and fastest way possible.  The &lt;i&gt;more&lt;/i&gt; you browse the web the &lt;i&gt;more&lt;/i&gt; Google makes; it&amp;#x27;s in their interest to develop SPDY&amp;#x2F;HTTP2.0.  So what is wrong with them doing it?  IEFT spec drafts are public and they&amp;#x27;re audited (as SPDY has been).&lt;p&gt;Also, most of the specs that we love and rely on today came from &amp;quot;big vendors&amp;quot;, its nice and all to say you want the little guy to be a part (and they should be) but it takes quite a bit of man power to develop, draft and finally get ratified a spec.</text><parent_chain><item><author>steveklabnik</author><text>There were so many people just calling for rubber-stamping SPDY as HTTP 2.0 without any changes that frankly, I feel lucky that we&amp;#x27;re getting revisions at all. The editor of the draft is a good guy, and I trust him to make good changes.&lt;p&gt;I think it&amp;#x27;s pretty ludicrous that so many people are willing to let an advertising company basically re-write the way that every computer on the web talks to each other with very little questioning, but this is the place that we&amp;#x27;re at nowadays. For better or worse, the big vendors guide the standards process. I&amp;#x27;d like to see more involvement from the little guys, but that has its own set of challenges.</text></item><item><author>samwillis</author><text>I understand the motivation to going to a binary protocol for a SPDY inspired HTTP 2.0 but I would have liked to see an ascii based protocol similar to what jgrahamc proposed last year [0]. I thought it was a much cleaner protocol to read and understand, and much more in tune with what the web is supposed to be. Why not keep the clever binary stuff separate in SPDY, endorse it though the IETF and keep HTTP ascii?&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.jgc.org/2012/12/speeding-up-http-with-minimal-protocol.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.jgc.org&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;speeding-up-http-with-minimal-pr...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>HTTP 2.0</title><url>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04</url></story>