Question about scope: why only unreliable datagrams? Why not reliable datagrams too? about datagram HOT 4 CLOSED

What you describe can already be accomplished using streams: each “reliable datagram” is its own stream. That provides reliable delivery without ordering between independent datagrams. I don’t think we need to add optional reliability to the datagram spec.

from datagram.

I guess an application could create a separate QUIC stream for each unordered reliable message. That might work, but seems ugly and may have some overhead

Streams are very lightweight, and well suited to this task. Beware applying intuition from TCP too heavily.

from datagram.

So, here's a suggestion then: since I'm sure I'm not the only person who is going to think of this, maybe add some verbiage to the spec explaining why supporting reliable datagrams is unnecessary?

from datagram.

Sounds good. We can keep this issue open as requesting an editorial change.

from datagram.