Given the kind of feedback happening (and my initial reaction admittedly was similar), maybe a different name would help with perception (I'm already not a big fan of "WebSockets", but "WebTCP" would have been worse), promoting the goals over the implementation detail of UDP?
If there is alternative transport protocol to enable low-latency delivery as efficient as UDP, then it is worth exploring.
UDP - is something been used by many industries for long time and is well known protocol to make a foundation from.
Re:The Need for Web UDP
by jstewartmobile on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:59PM
(#14861158)
It just seems like most real-life usages of WebRTC are either media-centric where TCP does more harm than good, or multiplayer scenarios where it's a wash since TCP's ordering is a pro while TCP's overhead is a con.
The goal of the topic is to explore simple option for server-client communication using low-latency communication, without reliability and without ordered delivery.
WebRTC can be used for such case, although it is not designed for it. Due to that implementation is very complex and not much adopted. This is something we trying to explore, either new API or simplifications to WebRTC to make it simple choice for UDP in server-client scenarios.