SPDY is used on about 4% of all websites, according to [1]. My assertions to MITM proxy vendors being incompetent have nothing to do with their SPDY support, an

SPDY is used on about 4% of all websites, according to [1]. My assertions to MITM proxy vendors being incompetent have nothing to do with their SPDY support, and just takes into account their overall track record. I'm not sure what you're point is when you say you couldn't find many products with HTTP/2 support now. So what? They will come to market over time. Meanwhile, SPDY has more support, and is available in free software like nginx. I don't see a problem with TLS being required, and I don't really care for proxies being in the middle. Again, people that want this behavior can opt in by installing a cert and be MITM'd, and if a vendor can't get HTTP2 support, they can easily strip it until they do (and we'd hope this caching proxy is close to the user, so the perf penalty for downgrading is less). And, for a site, supporting users on crappy proxies that force a downgrade is little different than supporting older browsers that don't have SPDY or HTTP2. So they'll make a choice. What's the big deal? Who is being hurt? How could this possibly work any other way? At some point, no matter the procedure, the final version of HttpVNext would have been completed. And vendors not paying attention would be in the exact same place. 1: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-spdy/all/all http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-spdy/all/all