Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP
From: Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP Date: Wed, 21 Jun 0 5:42:32 JST Phil; IP over NAT is, in no way, end-to-end. WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad. I think you're overstating your case. Yes, IP over NAT is bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as WAP. If you think so, don't say "end-to-end". If you want, it is still possible to "reconstruct" a true end-to-end IP service by tunneling it through a NAT with something vaguely resembling mobile IP. You can have IP over HTTP, IP over XML or IP over WAP equally easily. With IP over MIME you could even establish an IP connection over a mail gateway, firewall bypassing... Hmm the same goes for http proxies. The problem, however, is that the reconstruction point is an intelligent gateway which violates the end to end principle. Havent we learned to love and hate these breaking of layering? You can put basically anything over anything else when it comes to just moving bits around. While doing this we get the additional benefits of increased propagation delay, increased overhead, often complexer solutions and a new bag of problems in the interworking area. Lovely. We can feed a lot of research and engineer mouths this way. Now, while NAT and WAP both intend to solve some problems, they provide ground for new problems which naturally require new solutions. We should really ask weither some of these problems really should be solved within that scope or not. If IP over WAP is a bag of worms, maybe one should bypass WAP alltogether. Where we know that neither ATM, IP or NAT solves all the problems neither will WAP. It is not really what you could do as what you should do. Naturally there is allways politically and technical preferences which prohibits some solutions. Cheers, Magnus
SNMP v1, v2, v3 are they compatible?
Dear IETF People, I am working on my Masters degree at UWC. I was hoping someone would be able to clarify whether the different versions of SNMP are really not compatible or whether I have mssed something in my search. Thanking you and awaiting your reply in anticipation. Regards Tania Paulse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) University of the Western Cape
IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
See ftp://ftp.ietf.org//internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-ip-mime-03.txt. Donald From: Magnus Danielson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:40:40 +0200 From: Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP Date: Wed, 21 Jun 0 5:42:32 JST Phil; IP over NAT is, in no way, end-to-end. WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad. I think you're overstating your case. Yes, IP over NAT is bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as WAP. If you think so, don't say "end-to-end". If you want, it is still possible to "reconstruct" a true end-to-end IP service by tunneling it through a NAT with something vaguely resembling mobile IP. You can have IP over HTTP, IP over XML or IP over WAP equally easily. With IP over MIME you could even establish an IP connection over a mail gateway, firewall bypassing... Hmm the same goes for http proxies. The problem, however, is that the reconstruction point is an intelligent gateway which violates the end to end principle. Havent we learned to love and hate these breaking of layering? You can put basically anything over anything else when it comes to just moving bits around. While doing this we get the additional benefits of increased propagation delay, increased overhead, often complexer solutions and a new bag of problems in the interworking area. Lovely. We can feed a lot of research and engineer mouths this way. Now, while NAT and WAP both intend to solve some problems, they provide ground for new problems which naturally require new solutions. We should really ask weither some of these problems really should be solved within that scope or not. If IP over WAP is a bag of worms, maybe one should bypass WAP alltogether. Where we know that neither ATM, IP or NAT solves all the problems neither will WAP. It is not really what you could do as what you should do. Naturally there is allways politically and technical preferences which prohibits some solutions. Cheers, Magnus
Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:31:06 -0400 See ftp://ftp.ietf.org//internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-ip-mime-03.txt. For once people could spend some time reading the security considerations. Cheers, Magnus
Re: Port Help ?
try http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm Kimon - Original Message - From: "Parkinson, Jonathan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ietf@Ietf. Org (E-mail)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 10:26 Subject: Port Help ? Hi there Folks, Sorry about this but I don't know who to ask. I'm looking for a list of what ports are assigned to what I.E.. echo 7 Echo discard 9 Discard ftp-data 20 File Transfer [Default Data] ftp 21 File Transfer [Control] ssh 22 SSH Remote Login Protocol telnet 23 Telnet smtp 25 Simple Mail Transfer I don't suppose any one has a list, or could point me in the right direction ? Thanks Jon Jonathan Parkinson EMEA Operations Management Center. Remote Server and Network Management Group. Unix Support . Compaq Computer Limited Tel: DTN 7830 1118 Tel: External +44 (0)118 201118 Fax: +44 (0)118 201175 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP
Mohsen writes: Brijesh PS: By the way, ReFLEX is perfectly fine for two way messaging Brijesh applications. No. ReFLEX is not perfectly fine. It is not IP based. Hi Mohsen, What kind of argument is this? If it is not IP based it is not good ! This is an emotional response, not a technical one. Using the same arguments, the whole phone system isn't good because it has nothing to do with IP (or at least was true till VoIP came), and same is true of all G2 TDMA, CDMA and GSM cellular systems (and don't forget AMPS, CDECT and many other wireless standards). If you want to say that WAP is not good because it closes alternative solutions, I very much agree with you (which a good reason to fight for). But to say that an existing wireless standard that has millions of users is no good, isn't a proper argument. I agree that ReFLEX is a proprietary standard, and proprietary standards (with controlled licensing as ReFLEX is) are bad for consumers - you can definitely argue on that basis. But you cannot argue on technical merits of the protocol itself because it is very efficient in delivery of email messages. Using a 25 KHz channel it can support thousands of devices. It is not only very efficient in usage of radio spectrum, and it is well known that under-ground or in-building penetration of FLEX/ReFLEX systems is far better than any other cellular systems. Of course, it is not designed for interactive real time operations - but email doesn't require sub-milli seconds response nor do many telemetry systems such as coke machine and electric meters in houses. Even ARDIS network, the grand daddy of wireless data networking in US, has nothing to do with IP. The WAP's goal was to support just about every possible Radio layer. It is all inclusive and does support IP devices (which use CDPD, GPRS or CDMA/GSM - IWUs). Moreover, TCP/IP isn't designed for wireless channels which have limitations on bandwidth, frequent handovers, channel errors, and periods when channel isn't available at all (of course, number of solutions some of them are pure software hacks, such as snooping TCP halfway at BS etc., have been proposed. Of course, we haven't yet figured out how to initiate an application between two devices when both sit behind NATs at this scale (try sending a TCP connection message from one cellular phone to another cellular phone in the car and assume that both have them have no permanent IP addresses !). You will need true IPv6 without which IP with NAT isn't going to go long distance in wireless devices. What I wished to point out was that you definitely have a good objective, but the approach is not right. The real issue is should all technology be supported by a single set of WAP Forum derived specifications. What is good for ReFLEX (@9600 bauds) isn't good for CDPD at 19.2 Kbps and definitely isn't good at 170kbps GPRS, or 2 Mbits/sec G3 micro cells. I think there you have some good arguments. Given that most cellular devices or systems come from three super heavy weights, and two heavy weights, any solutions that doesn't get supported by some of them, has little chance to get adopted in near future. But try - you definitely can, and should. Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks Inc. (my personal views only, and in no way reflect opinions of my organization.)
RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
All, I have seen a lot of different people bash WAP over the past two days. However, I am a firm believer that WAP will become what IP is to us today. When you relate the technologies of today and the future technologies from a Telecommunication stand point. Then you will find IP is on the rise today and various Platforms are integrating or converging IP to their core networks. But when you equate the moves that are taking place for future solutions to the commercial or residential market. such as The Teledesic Model or AOL or Manasamen; then you began to get a glimpse of the future of WAP. Therefore I think it becomes quite important for this group to keep WAP as one of the main protocols of discussion / solutions. That's my take on WAP! Coming from the Brain! JT -Original Message- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 7:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP) See ftp://ftp.ietf.org//internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-ip-mime-03.txt. Donald From: Magnus Danielson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:40:40 +0200 From: Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP Date: Wed, 21 Jun 0 5:42:32 JST Phil; IP over NAT is, in no way, end-to-end. WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad. I think you're overstating your case. Yes, IP over NAT is bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as WAP. If you think so, don't say "end-to-end". If you want, it is still possible to "reconstruct" a true end-to-end IP service by tunneling it through a NAT with something vaguely resembling mobile IP. You can have IP over HTTP, IP over XML or IP over WAP equally easily. With IP over MIME you could even establish an IP connection over a mail gateway, firewall bypassing... Hmm the same goes for http proxies. The problem, however, is that the reconstruction point is an intelligent gateway which violates the end to end principle. Havent we learned to love and hate these breaking of layering? You can put basically anything over anything else when it comes to just moving bits around. While doing this we get the additional benefits of increased propagation delay, increased overhead, often complexer solutions and a new bag of problems in the interworking area. Lovely. We can feed a lot of research and engineer mouths this way. Now, while NAT and WAP both intend to solve some problems, they provide ground for new problems which naturally require new solutions. We should really ask weither some of these problems really should be solved within that scope or not. If IP over WAP is a bag of worms, maybe one should bypass WAP alltogether. Where we know that neither ATM, IP or NAT solves all the problems neither will WAP. It is not really what you could do as what you should do. Naturally there is allways politically and technical preferences which prohibits some solutions. Cheers, Magnus
RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
I just have 3 things to say WAP, Bluetooth and UMTS. The future looks Quick, the Future looks Mobile. :-) Thanks Jon -Original Message- From: Taylor, Johnny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 4:48 PM To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP) All, I have seen a lot of different people bash WAP over the past two days. However, I am a firm believer that WAP will become what IP is to us today. When you relate the technologies of today and the future technologies from a Telecommunication stand point. Then you will find IP is on the rise today and various Platforms are integrating or converging IP to their core networks. But when you equate the moves that are taking place for future solutions to the commercial or residential market. such as The Teledesic Model or AOL or Manasamen; then you began to get a glimpse of the future of WAP. Therefore I think it becomes quite important for this group to keep WAP as one of the main protocols of discussion / solutions. That's my take on WAP! Coming from the Brain! JT -Original Message- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 7:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP) See ftp://ftp.ietf.org//internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-ip-mime-03.txt. Donald From: Magnus Danielson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:40:40 +0200 From: Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP Date: Wed, 21 Jun 0 5:42:32 JST Phil; IP over NAT is, in no way, end-to-end. WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad. I think you're overstating your case. Yes, IP over NAT is bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as WAP. If you think so, don't say "end-to-end". If you want, it is still possible to "reconstruct" a true end-to-end IP service by tunneling it through a NAT with something vaguely resembling mobile IP. You can have IP over HTTP, IP over XML or IP over WAP equally easily. With IP over MIME you could even establish an IP connection over a mail gateway, firewall bypassing... Hmm the same goes for http proxies. The problem, however, is that the reconstruction point is an intelligent gateway which violates the end to end principle. Havent we learned to love and hate these breaking of layering? You can put basically anything over anything else when it comes to just moving bits around. While doing this we get the additional benefits of increased propagation delay, increased overhead, often complexer solutions and a new bag of problems in the interworking area. Lovely. We can feed a lot of research and engineer mouths this way. Now, while NAT and WAP both intend to solve some problems, they provide ground for new problems which naturally require new solutions. We should really ask weither some of these problems really should be solved within that scope or not. If IP over WAP is a bag of worms, maybe one should bypass WAP alltogether. Where we know that neither ATM, IP or NAT solves all the problems neither will WAP. It is not really what you could do as what you should do. Naturally there is allways politically and technical preferences which prohibits some solutions. Cheers, Magnus
Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP
I haven't read the WAP technical documents but I am struggling with the concept of a protocol created by the WAP Forum being secure and without snooping features. (I don't consider WTLS significant, rather a feel good measure.) Would someone more knowledgeable on WAP and their security model comment?
Re: idea for Free Protocols Foundation
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:17:25 -0700 (PDT), "James P. Salsman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: James The Free Protocols Foundation is correct in their position. James The amount of misrepresentation in the industry is becoming James absurd. Most of it is bait-and-switch, but beyond the James consumers hurt by it, shareholders are sure to be, too. As founder of the Free Protocols Foundation (FPF), of course I could not agree with you more. Most of the feedback that we have received about the general concept of Free Protocols has been very positive. However, up to now the policies and procedures that we propose have not been widely reviewed. Soon after this note, I will send a copy of the FPF Policies and Procedures to this list for review. Those of you interested in pursuing this concept further are invited to participate in the mailing lists set up at FPF web site at http://www.freeprotocols.org/ or to send your subscription request to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am willing to carry the ball for the FPF cause for a while and can certainly benefit from the participation of others in this non-profit organization. Those of you wishing to contribute towards this cause in any way, can drop me note. Regards, ...Mohsen.
Free Protocols Foundation Policies and Procedures -- Request For Review
I request that you review the attached document and email us your comments to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is what I consider a reasonably complete version of the policies and procedures which is likely to bring a lot of good in the area of Internet protocol development. If the Free Protocols Foundation policies become better understood and known, then traps such as WAP have less of a chance to be successful. Those of you interested in pursuing this concept further are invited to participate in the mailing lists set up at FPF web site at http://www.freeprotocols.org/ or to send your subscription request to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you in advance for reviewing this document and for your comments, suggestions and ideas. ...Mohsen. The Free Protocols Foundation Policies and Procedures www.FreeProtocols.org Version 0.7 May 10, 2000 Copyright 2000 Free Protocols Foundation. Published by: Free Protocols Foundation 17005 SE 31st Place Bellevue, WA 98008 USA Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 The Free Protocols Foundation Mission 1.2 The Patent Debate 1.3 How Patents Affect Protocols 1.4 Difficulties Relating to Software and Protocol Patents 1.5 Terminology 1.5.1 Definitions 1.6 About the Free Protocol Policies and Procedures 1.7 About this Document 2 The Protocol Development Process 2.1 Phases of Development 2.1.1 Initial Protocol Development 2.1.2 Global Parameter Assignment 2.1.3 Protocol Publication 2.1.4 Patent-Free Declarations 2.1.5 Industry Usage 2.1.6 Maintenance and Enhancement 2.1.7 Endorsement by a Standards Body 2.2 Role of the Free Protocols Foundation 2.3 Comparison to Standards Organization Processes 2.3.1 Centralisation vs. Decentralization of Responsibility 2.3.2 Coordination of Activities 2.3.3 Selective vs. Egalitarian Patent-Freedom 3 The Free Protocols Foundation 3.1 General Philosophy 3.2 Purpose, Activities and Scope 3.3 Other Activities 4 Free Protocol Development Working Groups 5 Patent-Free Declarations 5.1 Author's Declaration 5.2 Working Group Declaration 6 Patents, Copyright and Confidentiality - Policy Statement 6.1 Policy Statement Principles 6.2 General Policy 6.3 Confidentiality Obligations 6.4 Rights and Permissions of All Contributions 6.5 FPF Role Regarding Free Protocol Specifications 1 Introduction 1.1 The Free Protocols Foundation Mission --- Software patents pose a significant danger to protocols. In some cases patents become included in protocols by accident -- that is, without deliberate intentionality on the part of the protocol developer. In other cases, however, an unscrupulous company or organization may deliberately introduce patented components into a protocol, in an attempt to gain market advantage via ownership of the protocol. In either case, the protocol can then be held hostage by the patent-holder, to the enormous detriment of anyone else who may wish to use it. The inclusion of software-related patents in protocols is extremely damaging to the software industry in general, and to the consumer. The mission of the Free Protocols Foundation is to prevent this from happening. We have defined a set of processes which a protocol developer can use to work towards a patent-free result, and we provide a public forum in which the developer can declare that the protocol conforms to these processes. As described below, it is not possible to provide an absolute guarantee that any particular protocol is truly patent-free. However, the Free Protocols Foundation processes allow a developer to provide some public assurance that reasonable, good-faith measures have been taken to create a patent-free protocol. In some cases, standards organizations, such as the IESG, make use of their own processes for developing patent-free protocols. However, these processes are available only for the organization's own internal use. The Free Protocols Foundation makes the same general processes available to any protocol developer. Its processes allow any company, organization or individual to develop patent-free protocols, without requiring the developer to be part of a formal standards organization. At the Free Protocols Foundation we strenuously oppose the creation and promotion of patented protocols. By providing clear mechanisms and assurances of patent-freedom, our goal is to make it abundantly clear to the industry at large whether a particular protocol is, or is not, patent-free. 1.2 The Patent Debate
RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
Keith Moore writes: -Original Message- WAP might evolve into something more useful, but I don't see how it will replace IP in any sense. One is an architecture for supporting application on diverse wireless systems, and other is a network layer packet transport mechanism. Two aren't even comparable. WAP's goal is not to replace IP, but mediate between non-IP wireless devices, and existing IP based wire line applications. WAP as it currently exists isn't a solution to any future problem - it is a solution to the problem of how to build a consumer information service over SMS and cell phones with limited displays. No. It is a solution of how to support meaningful applications over a wireless channel with *limited bandwidth*, and use the same application over wide variety of radio protocols and systems without change (or minimal change). Meaningful applications include some of current wire line applications. The size of display has nothing to do with it. The bottleneck is BANDWIDTH not the display size (you may have a device that has a screen size of 1 meter by 1 meter - but that doesn't obviate the need of devising mechanisms that better utilize the radio spectrum. But cell networks are starting to deploy far better data delivery services than SMS (more bandwidth, less latency) and I expect that cell phones will get better display capabilities along with PDA functionality (and likewise, PDAs will get wireless data capability). Under these conditions, WAP as we know it today isn't very interesting. See above. The size of display isn't the issue. Contrary to what you say, most people who work in cellular industry think that WAP is very interesting piece of work given the limitations of the systems that are *widely deployed and used today*. As far as wireless industry is concerned, the die is already cast - WAP, BlueTooth and UMTS are three future technologies. cheers, --brijesh (my personal views only.)
Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
Brijesh Kumar wrote: The size of display has nothing to do with it. Ah, so that's why WAP uses standard HTML? -- /\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |===| |eCal Corp. |"What we have here is a failure to assimilate."| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|--Cool Hand Locutius | \/
WAP and IP
Keith wrote; I expect that WAP will evolve, and continue to be used, because there will certainly be some services that fit its market niche. But it will generally be run over IP, because IP will generally be available and it is more efficient than SMS. And it will be just one of many IP-based services that are accessible from a wireless platform. What's funny is that of *current* WAP and Phone.com deployments, almost all use IP as the bearer to the handset (I don't personally know of any that don't, but there may be some), and none (AFAIK) use SMS. Oops. Brijesh wrote; WAP's goal is not to replace IP, but mediate between non-IP wireless devices, and existing IP based wire line applications. Yet there's no need to do this, since your phone is already IP. See above. The size of display isn't the issue. Contrary to what you say, most people who work in cellular industry think that WAP is very interesting piece of work given the limitations of the systems that are *widely deployed and used today*. You need to talk to more people. 8-) If you're at the WAPforum meeting right now, let me know and we can get together and talk more about it in person. MB
Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
WAP might evolve into something more useful, but I don't see how it will replace IP in any sense. One is an architecture for supporting application on diverse wireless systems, and other is a network layer packet transport mechanism. Two aren't even comparable. the two are comperable in that WAP applications compete with traditional Internet applications, and people will sometimes have to choose between "native Internet" and WAP as a means of running their application (or support both) WAP as it currently exists isn't a solution to any future problem - it is a solution to the problem of how to build a consumer information service over SMS and cell phones with limited displays. No. It is a solution of how to support meaningful applications over a wireless channel with *limited bandwidth*, sure, but SMS was the limiting case on the bandwidth side. were it not for the need to support SMS it would have made a lot more sense to just use IP. (though not necessarily to use traditional IP transports or applications on top of it - but that would have at least been possible for those who were willing to suffer the expense/delay.) display size might not have been a fundamental design constraint of WAP's lower layers, but WAP applications are certainly designed to cope with limited display size, and the limitations of cellphone displays are often used as a justification for using WAP instead of IP based applications. See above. The size of display isn't the issue. Contrary to what you say, most people who work in cellular industry think that WAP is very interesting piece of work given the limitations of the systems that are *widely deployed and used today*. today, perhaps. tomorrow is different. As far as wireless industry is concerned, the die is already cast - WAP, BlueTooth and UMTS are three future technologies. an industry that believes its own marketing propaganda is quite often wrong. Keith
Re: Free Protocols Foundation Policies and Procedures -- Request For Review
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mohsen BANAN-Public typed: I request that you review the attached document and email us your comments to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] its a nice idea there is, after all, a free market in standards orgaanisations however, the ietf is the one with the monopoly at the moment...so i thinkwithout an RFCm you are left holding an anti-trust suit without a lawyer to bet on but your meta-case in terms of the content is fine cheers job
Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
"Brijesh Kumar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WAP's goal is not to replace IP, but mediate between non-IP wireless devices, and existing IP based wire line applications. So then obvious the Right Thing is to put an IP stack on each of those devices. Then such "mediation" is unnecessary. -- Mark Atwood | It is the hardest thing for intellectuals to understand, that [EMAIL PROTECTED] | just because they haven't thought of something, somebody else | might. http://www.friesian.com/rifkin.htm http://www.pobox.com/~mra
RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
At 4:16 PM -0400 6/21/00, Brijesh Kumar wrote: WAP's goal is not to replace IP, but mediate between non-IP wireless devices, and existing IP based wire line applications. There are no "IP based wire line applications". Applications based on IP don't depend on, or know, or care that their packets flow over wires or fibres or RF waves or IR waves or wet string, or any combination thereof. That's one of the neat things about IP. Steve
Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
% % At 4:16 PM -0400 6/21/00, Brijesh Kumar wrote: % WAP's goal is not to replace IP, but mediate between non-IP wireless % devices, and existing IP based wire line applications. % % There are no "IP based wire line applications". Applications based on IP % don't depend on, or know, or care that their packets flow over wires or % fibres or RF waves or IR waves or wet string, or any combination thereof. % That's one of the neat things about IP. % % Steve % Hum, Did the IESG depricate IP over Avian Carrier when I blinked? And the draft on IP over seismic waves is due any day now. -- --bill
Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
WAP's goal is not to replace IP, but mediate between non-IP wireless devices, and existing IP based wire line applications. So then obvious the Right Thing is to put an IP stack on each of those devices. Then such "mediation" is unnecessary. but there may not be enough room in the 640k before one runs into the video buffer. :-) technical shortsightedness used as an excuse for an attempt to create a monpolistic walled garden. don't get too excited about it, other more ipish mobile phone technologies are already passing wap. don't you just love telephants? randy
