[paulsutter]

Moreover, the author seems to completely miss the point that SPDY was designed to overcome wide area networking performance issues with the way http uses tcp. Which it does quite well for substantial latency improvements.

He throws out a lot of criticism about SPDY being haphazardly designed (with no explanation), then we find out that really he has an axe to grind over cookies and SSL.

I call bullshit on the whole post. I found nothing useful in it. I almost fell for the http router bit, but again he offers no more than vague criticisms. If SPDY hasn't been a problem at Google and Facebook for load balancers, SPDY isn't badly designed for load balancer implementation. It leads me to believe that his real issue is that Varnish must have been coded in such a way to make it hard to support SPDY. Or perhaps that the authors real beef with SPDY is that he didn't design it.

[paulsutter]

Any downvoters care to give a more specific response? The OP completely missed the actual purpose of SPDY/HTTP 2.0, without contributing constructive feedback. Facebook's comments on HTTP 2.0 proposals were much more useful

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JulSep/...