Idea is that phones would support standard Internet protocols. So you need OTA over HTTP.
FYI - WAP defined by a http://everything2.org node :
*** A bletcherous protocol stack which basically reinvents TCP/IP from the ground up, under the guise of " wireless is different" (kind of ironic considering that TCP was invented because of the radio network on alohanet ). As a result, you have people reimplementing all the mistakes that were made in the history of the internet , but in a tenth of the timespan.
This would be understandable if WAP (more precisely, WDP and WTP ) actually did anything that UDP and TCP didn't do. As it is, it's a hodge-podge of ideas borrowed from the IETF and misimplemented by a closed committee.
Check out http://www.4k-associates.com/IEEE-L7-WAP-BIG.html for more information.
***
So WAP 2.0 means XHTML with alot of redundant headers resent for each screen(card), does anybody have an estimate of how much WBXML would save in transfer size ? ...
/peter
Aarno
On 3.3.2004, at 06:25, Navjot Singh wrote:
Hi peter,
�
I know what OTA_HTTP and for that matter OTA_HTTP_TLS and it's corresponding WSP variants do?
�
What I wish to understand is that where is the need to have HTTP when WSP is already there? Designers have provided this facility, so there must be good reasons to do so that i am unable to understand.
�
regards
Navjot Singh
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Fagerlund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:53 PM
To: Navjot Singh
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: wap push terminal
On Tuesday, Mar 2, 2004, at 14:54 Europe/Stockholm, Navjot Singh wrote:
Why does a terminal needs to have support for both OTA-HTTP and OTA-WSP?
What are the added advantages of having OTA-HTTP service in terminal.
OTA_HTTP provides push over IP utilising HTTP POST from terminal and are a connection-oriented push.
se : WAP-250-PushArchOverview-20010703-a.pdf page 16 chapter 8
/peter
