MP3 is not a protocol but a file format. You are right that TCP/UDP uses
binary headers but we are talking about a high level protocol, which if
popularized, will be coded by third party coders according to RFC and this I
believe will not be so trivial for the binary case! ICS has codes for
SMTP/POP/HTTP/FTP (all text) but not for TCP. Wasn't there a need for low
level stacks? Think again--we have all lived through syn-attacks and
ping-o-deaths. Keep in mind that Microsoft recoded the entire TCP/IP stack
in Windows 2008 Server just for this. But since it was something hard to do,
through the past decade, Microsoft was being waited to step forward.

ALso, for adoption, large enterprises want to test every protocol they
use--when they are new. Testing a binary protocol for them would also be
hard and this might hammer adoption globally. We have customers who study
and stress test for 29 days to understand how our caching and then decide to
buy at the end of the trial period!



On 2/7/08, Hoby Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion), binary protocols make much
> smarter sense for binary machines.  Even with the discrepancies of the
> various flavors of binary formats (big vs little endian, etc), it is WAY
> MORE EFFICIENT for binary machines to use binary protocols than to
> interpret
> human readable formats (text, xml, etc) into binary formats so that they
> may
> be processed appropriately by processor and related software.  Only humans
> think in the context of textual formats; computers do not.  The overhead
> associated with textual translation is a horrible side effect of the web
> phenomenon.
> Actually, the statement "no popular/common protocol is designed that way"
> is
> horribly inaccurate.  True, the W3C has an inherent conflict of interest
> in
> driving the pervasive use of textual formats.  However, there are tens of
> thousands of binary formats that predate the stupid web stack and continue
> to emerge daily.  For example, consider TCP, which is a binary protocol
> and
> the actual core technology upon which this mail list and ICS is
> founded.  I
> would consider TCP to be "popular" and "common".  It is only the layer 7
> centric, web focused protocols that are textual in nature.  Unfortunately,
> the web has set computing back about 20 years, the effects of which has
> only
> recently begun to be realized in all of its awful consequences (slow
> cumbersome interfaces, security issues galore, etc).
> Quite some time back, before clients of various types were ubiquitous, it
> was necessary for servers to understand human readable formats (ftp, etc).
> That need has long been outlived and the perspective that drives it is
> seriously antiquated.  With very few exceptions, the data needs of server
> systems are way too complex to be constrained by human readable formats.
> For example, are you going to type the binary values for a MIME image that
> you want to embed in an email?  Try doing that via a textual SMTP
> interface.
> The whole need of MIME was to overcome the stupid limitations of a textual
> email standard.  Let's see, how do I represent binary data in a textual
> format.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.  In a web world, I guess it does.
> How about a word document?  Do you want a format that you have to type the
> font details manually, like HTML?  NO, you use a word processor that does
> all that for you and then stores it in format that the system understands.
> How about audio?  Do you want a media stream protocol that is human
> readable? Such a media protocol would be too slow be feasible.  MP3 is a
> BINARY solution that attempts to answer the audio data issues.  Everyone
> uses a piece of software that understands MP3.  I would consider MP3 to be
> "common" and "popular", even though it is BINARY.
> For computing needs, the future reality is surely a return to strong
> binary
> representations that can be interpreted into forms that humans can
> understand as needed, or can be handled by clients as necessary.
> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of Fastream Technologies
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 5:43 AM
> To: ICS support mailing
> Subject: Re: [twsocket] AN: New e-mail protocol (spam free and more!)
> I wonder why he chose a binary format instead of text as no popular/common
> protocol is designed that way (i.e. HTTP, FTP, IMAP--all telnet based)!
> Regards,
> SZ
> On 2/7/08, DZ-Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So, rather than a new "protocol", you have created a new e-mail server
> > and client system which communicates in its own proprietary binary
> > format?
> >
> >        dZ.
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2008, at 18:50, David A. G. wrote:
> >
> > > Dear friends,
> > >
> > > I have developed a complete and very improved e-mail protocol, highly
> > > immune
> > > to the SPAM, with data encryption and compression, with sender ID
> > > validation, etc. BUT not compatible with the standard email (SMTP).
> >
> > --
> >        DZ-Jay [TeamICS]
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list
> > please goto
> > Visit our website at
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list
> please goto
> Visit our website at
> --
> To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list
> please goto
> Visit our website at
To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list
please goto
Visit our website at

Reply via email to