QUIC isn't like TCP or UDP. Even though it is labeled as Transport Layer it is more between Transport Layer and Application Layer.
Effectively QUIC provides a TCP-like connection using UDP, where all packet handling is performed by the application, and not the network stack of an OS/router/etc.
In the OSI model QUIC would probably more fit in the Session layer.
Adding a new Transport Layer protocol is nearly impossible. It would take a really long time before it would be even usable in part of the world. Piggy backing on UDP, which is the most accessible Transport Layer protocol in an OS is the only way to hope for quick adoption.
What you're saying is valid, I just kept some of the details out of the article to make it more accessible.
I approached writing this from the point of view of an application developer, not a network engineer. I would argue that QUIC is like TCP and UDP in the sense that they're your three choices if you're building an application-layer protocol. I do think QUIC is similar to TCP in the sense that both offer reliable data transfer, and that QUIC is similar to UDP in the sense that it's UDP with reliable connection-oriented data transfer and other bells and whistles like built-in TLS on top.
From the point of view of a network engineer who's used to OSI's architecture model, this will indeed be an unconditional way to frame things. But I think it makes sense from the perspective of a layperson who doesn't necessarily need a nuanced view of the full protocol stack to make an online game.
QUIC isn't like TCP or UDP. Even though it is labeled as Transport Layer it is more between Transport Layer and Application Layer.
Effectively QUIC provides a TCP-like connection using UDP, where all packet handling is performed by the application, and not the network stack of an OS/router/etc.
In the OSI model QUIC would probably more fit in the Session layer.
Adding a new Transport Layer protocol is nearly impossible. It would take a really long time before it would be even usable in part of the world. Piggy backing on UDP, which is the most accessible Transport Layer protocol in an OS is the only way to hope for quick adoption.
What you're saying is valid, I just kept some of the details out of the article to make it more accessible.
I approached writing this from the point of view of an application developer, not a network engineer. I would argue that QUIC is like TCP and UDP in the sense that they're your three choices if you're building an application-layer protocol. I do think QUIC is similar to TCP in the sense that both offer reliable data transfer, and that QUIC is similar to UDP in the sense that it's UDP with reliable connection-oriented data transfer and other bells and whistles like built-in TLS on top.
From the point of view of a network engineer who's used to OSI's architecture model, this will indeed be an unconditional way to frame things. But I think it makes sense from the perspective of a layperson who doesn't necessarily need a nuanced view of the full protocol stack to make an online game.
A layperson making an online game, God bless that day!