4 ms·

No they made the wrong decision and SCTP and QUIC fixed almost everything wrong with TCP. I personally stopped using raw TCP because it is almost always the wr

No they made the wrong decision and SCTP and QUIC fixed almost everything wrong with TCP. I personally stopped using raw TCP because it is almost always the wrong solution. If I need a bare bones protocol where I want to send raw bytes I now always use websockets because they work exactly as they should. Streaming is such a niche usecase that is only natural if you don't semantically interpret the data, i.e. arbitrary file transfers but the vast majority of the complexity isn't there. > It's easy to add features to a simple transport, it's not so easy to work around features when you don't want them No, in my experience, you will spend most of your time working around TCP warts.

kjs3 4y ago
No, they made TCP for a particular set of use cases, and UDP for a different set, and there's always plain IP for you to build whatever you want. If you were using TCP for the wrong use case, how is that Vint Cerfs (or anyone elses) fault?
zymhan 4y ago
> WebSocket is a computer communications protocol, providing full-duplex communication channels over a single TCP connection It doesn't seem like you've actually moved away from using TCP. Maybe it's just too low of a layer for your needs?
jerf 4y ago
"No they made the wrong decision and SCTP and QUIC fixed almost everything wrong with TCP." In the context of 2023, this is a defensible position. I can quibble, but it's defensible. However, are you sure you want a 1974 take on a "message based protocol"? Trust me, you're not getting SCTP out of that, in a world where having two streams instead of just one is a noticeable resource impact. Heck, even by the 1990s there were still a lot of really bad things coming out of the world of "message based protocols". You wouldn't be here in 2023 with a message-based TCP. You'd be here in 2023 with some other protocol having become the foundation of the Internet, and it wouldn't be "message based" either. There's no option where someone in 1974 is building with the nearly 50 years of experience that haven't happened yet, and I'm not going to grade TCP on that basis personally.

kjs3 4y ago

No, they made TCP for a particular set of use cases, and UDP for a different set, and there's always plain IP for you to build whatever you want. If you were using TCP for the wrong use case, how is that Vint Cerfs (or anyone elses) fault?

zymhan 4y ago

> WebSocket is a computer communications protocol, providing full-duplex communication channels over a single TCP connection It doesn't seem like you've actually moved away from using TCP. Maybe it's just too low of a layer for your needs?

jerf 4y ago

"No they made the wrong decision and SCTP and QUIC fixed almost everything wrong with TCP." In the context of 2023, this is a defensible position. I can quibble, but it's defensible. However, are you sure you want a 1974 take on a "message based protocol"? Trust me, you're not getting SCTP out of that, in a world where having two streams instead of just one is a noticeable resource impact. Heck, even by the 1990s there were still a lot of really bad things coming out of the world of "message based protocols". You wouldn't be here in 2023 with a message-based TCP. You'd be here in 2023 with some other protocol having become the foundation of the Internet, and it wouldn't be "message based" either. There's no option where someone in 1974 is building with the nearly 50 years of experience that haven't happened yet, and I'm not going to grade TCP on that basis personally.