[vvanders]

I guess I don't really see the big issue with that. It's not like windowing and congestion control is some kind of black magic. It's spelled out pretty cleanly in the TCP RFC and pretty straight-forward to reimplement.

Generally if you're hitting cases where TCP is causing you grief and you need to reach for UDP you've already got enough context to understand your congestion problems/etc.

We've been doing this in game-dev for decades, ditto the voip space so it's not like you don't have a wealth of knowledge to draw from if you're really stumped.

[JoeAltmaier]

If you just use TCP again you haven't done anything. The whole point is to avoid latency.

Most folks use some UDP-based protocol package instead of reinventing the wheel. Its not rocket science, but it isn't trivial. Defining your own packets to do all the flow stuff is just work, like any other programming task.

[vvanders]

I don't think I was suggesting using TCP, I was suggesting implementing the features you like from TCP into your stack if you really need them. You can do congestion control without retry, etc.

I've built variations of UDP based protocols 4 or 5 different times over my career. I'm literally in the middle of this right now with the radio framing protocol I've been developing. I really think you're making it out to be much harder than it is.

[tonyg]

I was delighted when DCCP appeared: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datagram_Congestion_Control_Pr...

It focuses narrowly on a congestion control protocol, and is intended to be combined which whichever datagram-based protocol you have lying around that might be suffering from congestion issues.