> that doesn't work with UDP or even ping?

I never said it didn't work with UDP or ping. I described what it does differently for TCP.

Anyway, I'm sorry we offended you with its name.

I personally think it would've been more offensive to use an existing spec name and then not implement the spec of that name perfectly. (which is likely if our needs/goals only 90% overlap with the spec we pick)

At least if we screw up this implementation, we didn't tarnish anybody else's spec or its name.