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
nning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 4:44 PM
To: Steve Deering
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
%
% At 4:16 PM -0400 6/21/00, Bri
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:05:43 -0400, "Brijesh Kumar"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Brijesh PS: By the way, ReFLEX is perfectly fine for two way messaging
Brijesh applications.
Mohsen No.
Mohsen
Mohsen ReFLEX is not perfectly fine.
Mohsen
Mohsen It is not IP based.
Brijesh Hi
At 18.23 -0700 00-06-21, Bill Manning wrote:
Did the IESG depricate IP over Avian Carrier when I blinked?
And the draft on IP over seismic waves is due any day now.
Don't forget
1926 An Experimental Encapsulation of IP Datagrams on Top of ATM. J.
Eriksson. April 1996.
Mohsen;
Masataka WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad.
We have two sets of problems and layering helps here.
At layer 3, we need to make things end-to-end.
At layer 7, the WAP approach is simply the wrong approach.
I'm operating on all the layers.
We need competition in the
From: Patrik Fältström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:02:56 +0200
At 13.37 +0200 00-06-22, Magnus Danielson wrote:
1926 An Experimental Encapsulation of IP Datagrams on Top of ATM. J.
Eriksson. April 1996
Bill Manning wrote:
And the draft on IP over seismic waves is due any day now.
Security Considerations: since the most effective way to generate seismic
waves is with a nuclear device, users of this protocol can expect to be
secured by their governments for a very long time.
--
From: John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:03:12 -0400
Bill Manning wrote:
And the draft on IP over seismic waves is due any day now.
Security Considerations: since the most effective way
Did the IESG depricate IP over Avian Carrier when I blinked?
And the draft on IP over seismic waves is due any day now.
Consider the possibilities of a neutrino beam -- no media costs and
lower latency than direct point-to-point fiber.
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.
How nice to have firm belief-systems. What I write here are only my personal
opinions.
I posted Rohit's tour of the tangle when I was at Nokia
It's my understanding that disturbances in The Force
were actually routed using an ancient precursor to IP.
C_
At 09:57 AM 6/22/00 -0500, Matt Crawford wrote:
Did the IESG depricate IP over Avian Carrier when I blinked?
And the draft on IP over seismic waves is due any day now.
Chuck writes,
It's my understanding that disturbances in The Force
were actually routed using an ancient precursor to IP.
I don't know about it, but the myth goes that ET communicated with his
folks using IP :-). The captured packet trace is
"UndecodableDatalink:IPheader:TCPheader:"ET go
nice call
--john
-Original Message-
From: Brijesh Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 3:18 PM
To: 'Chuck Kaekel'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
Chuck writes,
It's my understanding
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:02:39 +0100 (BST), Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Lloyd And from that anti-WAP polemic:
Mohsen We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the
Mohsen following persons in the preparation and review of
Mohsen this document: Andrew Hammoude, Richard
Bill Manning wrote:
And the draft on IP over seismic waves is due any day now.
Security Considerations: since the most effective way to generate seismic
waves is with a nuclear device, users of this protocol can expect to be
secured by their governments for a very long
Probably, there is some universe out there made of AnTi-Matter and where
anti-packets are mostly routed using anti-IP, or in other words...ATM.
:)
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Brijesh Kumar wrote:
Chuck writes,
It's my understanding that disturbances in The Force
were actually routed using
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
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
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 cons
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
"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.
--
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
%
% 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
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
Mohsen Banan,
I tried hard to agree what you said - but many inaccuracies and
assumptions made in the article made my task so hard that I had to
finally give up reading it. Having spent last several years in the
wireless industry, and also having written some "not-so-open" as you
say, but widely
I've worked in the wireless data field for a long time, first in
amateur packet radio, then on CDMA digital cellular at Qualcomm.
Naturally, what I say here are only my personal opinions.
I also scratched my head when WAP came out. It just didn't make any
technical sense. I see I'm not the only
Phil;
The best defense against WAP is an open handheld platform that allows
end users (and independent vendors and open-source developers) to run
applications and network protocols of their own choice. As long as
the service providers support IP (perhaps in addition to WAP), the
open
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. I don't meant to defend NAT, but
many/most existing Internet protocols and applications do work over it
with few if any
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
Phil Karn wrote:
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. Such a scheme would probably use UDP or TCP as
its encapsulation wrapper so the NAT would have port numbers to keep
it
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:30:31 -0400, "Brijesh Kumar"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Brijesh It is an open secret that wireless industry is a closed cartel of
Brijesh three super heavyweights (Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia) and two heavy
Brijesh weights (Lucent and Nortel). There is no role for
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:59:15 +0859 (), Masataka Ohta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The Internet end-to-end model will once again prevail, putting the
cellular service providers back into their proper place as providers
of packet pipes, nothing more. And life will be good again. :-)
38 matches
Mail list logo
