4 ms·

The article talks about the advantages of HTTP/3 for IoT applications. I recently did an IoT application (weather station) where I actually ended up using HTTP/

The article talks about the advantages of HTTP/3 for IoT applications. I recently did an IoT application (weather station) where I actually ended up using HTTP/1.0. I only had to send a total of around 70 bytes every two minutes. If at the end of that two minutes I had an invalid or missing response there was nothing more to do other than record the result for a possible future reset. Once there was new data available the old data was irrelevant. So I don't see how HTTP/3 would of helped there. Most IoT applications are not very sensitive to things like latency and what counts as reliability is very much dependent on the situation. A simple protocol is an advantage.

aboardRat4 2y ago
>Most IoT applications are not very sensitive to things like latency and what counts as reliability is very much dependent on the situation. IoT is not about latency. IoT is about devices being behind a NAT which does not allow inbound connections. With UDP-based HTTP/3 it is possible to do "udp hole punching".
- upofadown 2y ago
  >With UDP-based HTTP/3 it is possible to do "udp hole punching". That works reliably with all the various types of NAT?
  - aboardRat4 2y ago
    For some definition of "reliably". In the sense that nothing is really reliable in the presence of state-level adversaries censuring traffic, malicious ISPs, and crappy hardware. In general I have been more successful with QUIC hole punching than with ipv6. But having a standard and relatively broadly implemented way to make reliable "TCP-like" streams over UDP is a great thing regardless.