These are fair points, and I appreciate you pointing out that the IETF has a pretty dang good process. But do you think if QUIC wasn't exactly what they wanted

These are fair points, and I appreciate you pointing out that the IETF has a pretty dang good process. But do you think if QUIC wasn't exactly what they wanted, Google would have signed off on it? I don't think so. I think they would have kept using SPDY. So I don't see much difference between QUIC coming from the IETF or Google itself, since I'm assuming the final output artifact is the same. At the end of the day all I'm trying to say is we should be wary of the tech choices of big companies. Most websites probably don't need HTTP/2+, a CDN, etc, and the complexity that comes with it. Most startups probably don't need microservices. Most web apps probably don't need more than Mithril.js (or HTML forms for that matter). I'm not arguing against things existing or being good, just that it's important to be cautious buying in wholesale and assuming the way large companies do things is the way everyone should do things. If you're not careful you can end up in a place where the simple option is no longer available. For example it's basically impossible to make a web browser with a small team now. I'm excited about HTTP/3 as long as they don't try to take HTTP/1.1 away from me.