Of the varied bizarrely negative posts this submission has earned, yours is the one that perplexes me most. How is HTTP/2 going to "bite" Google (even if we assume that Google is the only initiator of the HTTP/2 spec, while they're far from it)?
Is the web, right now, failing? Are those little sites somehow not existing? You seem to be positing that a new standard not supporting your pet feature is suddenly going to destroy the web, which seems a little hysterical.
Interesting to note that as a relatively small shop we've already seen huge benefits from SPDY (the precursor) because it allows us to serve from a single site in the US, offering a much, much better experience for our users in Singapore (the benefits to high latency connections are significantly higher than the results commonly reported).
I thought I expressed myself reasonably clearly. The web is currently slowly centralizing and turning into Facebook. Google could fight this trend by using SRV records for HTTP/2. If, otherwise, this trend continues, Google will eventually have nothing in the open web to index, and will therefore get no value from selling ads in their search service. Therefore, Google is doing itself a disservice by not using SRV records in HTTP/2.
I further speculated about the reasons Google might have for acting the way the do – i.e. not supporting SRV records. I proposed two reasons: First, SRV records do not solve any problem which Google has not already solved for themselves, and they do not want anybody else to simply get the solution for free, since that would devalue their previous investment. Second, Google assumed that they would be the ones that the Web would centralize into, and even since Facebook has appeared, Google created Google+ and tried to push it as a centralization point, using every pressure point they could muster (YouTube, etc.) to make this happen. If they could make this happen, they also would not benefit from a more decentralized web as would be enabled by SRV records in HTTP/2.
A new version of HTTP is a perfect (and, in fact, the only) opportunity to introduce SRV record usage into the HTTP protocol. The fact that they have chosen not to do this, even though SRV is essentially made for this – an extension of the MX record system into a generalized system for any and all protocols – requires an explanation.
Is the web, right now, failing? Are those little sites somehow not existing? You seem to be positing that a new standard not supporting your pet feature is suddenly going to destroy the web, which seems a little hysterical.
Interesting to note that as a relatively small shop we've already seen huge benefits from SPDY (the precursor) because it allows us to serve from a single site in the US, offering a much, much better experience for our users in Singapore (the benefits to high latency connections are significantly higher than the results commonly reported).