[zozbot234]

We might want to have a SCTP-based HTTP/4 down the road. That would surely benefit from some fixes on the network side.

[jeffbee]

See, that will NEVER happen. Completely impractical. SCTP has a different protocol number in the IP datagram header and many devices will either drop or malfunction when faced with protocol numbers they don't understand. UDP and TCP (protocol numbers 6 and 17) are well-supported, by practically all devices.

[anticensor]

Why not package QUIC in IP directly without UDP in between?

[jlouis]

UDP is as clean as you can get it. It is more or less free of any overhead. And networks know UDP already. A new IP protocol is far more likely to be rejected in the network.

[tptacek]

This, exactly; it's the actual reason UDP exists. It's a design smell for anything to ask for a new IP protocol number.

[sagichmal]

A protocol separate to UDP and TCP altogether would suffer from middlebox interference problems.

[anticensor]

Aaaa, you mean the problem of -smart- stupid pipes. These do and will exist all the time and this is an opportunity for them to realise how detrimental they do is to Internet.

[sagichmal]

They're inextricably woven into the fabric of the internet, and unfortunately can't be wished away.