SPDY is likely not our savior (from the Varnish author): http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/07/13/1327235/varnish-author-suggests-spdy-should-be-viewed-as

SPDY is likely not our savior (from the Varnish author): http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/07/13/1327235/varnish-author-suggests-spdy-should-be-viewed-as-a-prototype http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/07/13/1327235/varnis... Overall, I find the design approach taken in SPDY deeply flawed. For instance identifying the standardized HTTP headers, by a 4-byte length and textual name, and then applying a deflate compressor to save bandwidth is totally at odds with the job of HTTP routers which need to quickly extract the Host: header in order to route the traffic, preferably without committing extensive resources to each request. ... It is still unclear for me if or how SPDY can be used on TCP port 80 or if it will need a WKS allocation of its own, which would open a ton of issues with firewalling, filtering and proxying during deployment. (This is one of the things which makes it hard to avoid the feeling that SPDY really wants to do away with all the "middle-men") With my security-analyst hat on, I see a lot of DoS potential in the SPDY protocol, many ways in which the client can make the server expend resources, and foresee a lot of complexity in implementing the server side to mitigate and deflect malicious traffic. His full writeup is quite good, I'm not sure that if it was submitted to HN: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html