ure of: it will be something wireless.
Peace,
Raymond
-Original Message-
From: Taylor, Johnny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:07 PM
To: Anthony Atkielski; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Kevin Clements (E-mail); Kevin Lampkin (E-mail); Raymond Cutts
(E-mail); Robert Scott (E-m
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:26:13 +0200, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I'd have to disagree there. The 8 million non-WAP users
> > in Japan are unarguably enjoying the most prolific, robust,
> > and deep wireless Internet available today.
>
> We still have more than five billion use
> I'd have to disagree there. The 8 million non-WAP users
> in Japan are unarguably enjoying the most prolific, robust,
> and deep wireless Internet available today.
We still have more than five billion users who aren't even online yet. They
haven't enjoyed anything thus far.
> I concur with you on the point of land optics
> however the average person requires remote and
> mobile access to their corporate networks,
> intra-nets, extra-nets, and value-added-networks.
The average person doesn't use any of these networks, and so does not
require access to them. There ar
"Taylor, Johnny" wrote:
In addition to this point I would
like to also state WAP is the front runner in regards to linking
wireless apps to the Global Internet and her sub-nets.
I'd have to disagree there. The 8 million non-WAP users in Japan are unarguably
enjoying the most prolific, robust, an
I like that close!
-Original Message-
From: Gilbert Cattoire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:12 PM
To: Anthony Atkielski; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...
At 18:29 +0200 29/06/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>I don't understand why
age-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 1:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...
> thats why intelsat and a cosortium of telcos has
> a charity that built a box that is solar powered
> and provides n gsm phones ac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Provided your message fits into 160 characters.
- --murton
- -Original Message-
From: Graham Klyne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 July 2000 17:59
To: Vernon Schryver
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...
At 07:22
At 07:22 PM 7/4/00 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>If you are only using your cell phone screen for text messages, why
>do you need WAP?
You don't.
(My phone isn't a WAP phone, but it does do SMS.)
#g
Graham Klyne
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > Well, 10 million Japanese, and growing by 20,000 every DAY.
>
> Only 100 million more to go.
>
> The Japanese, however, have a passion for highly miniaturized gadgets, so
> I'm not sure that they are representative.
>
> Personally, I don't even have a laptop, mainly because I find laptops so
>
> Well, 10 million Japanese, and growing by 20,000 every DAY.
Only 100 million more to go.
The Japanese, however, have a passion for highly miniaturized gadgets, so
I'm not sure that they are representative.
Personally, I don't even have a laptop, mainly because I find laptops so
incredibly clu
Graham Klyne wrote:
> At 07:12 PM 6/30/00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> >Why use SMS instead of just voice?
> >
> >Has anyone considered the ergonomics of WAP? Even if it works perfectly,
> >how many people are willing to work on a screen smaller than a credit card?
Well, 10 million Japane
> But I have been astonished by the degree of adoption of SMS (in UK) by
> school children who purchase their own pre-pay mobile phones (for about
> $50-100). SMS may be awkward, but the per-use cost is is very low, and
> totally predictable. And the users in this case soon learn to handle
At 07:12 PM 6/30/00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>Why use SMS instead of just voice?
>
>Has anyone considered the ergonomics of WAP? Even if it works perfectly,
>how many people are willing to work on a screen smaller than a credit card?
>How many people are capable of touch-typing on a keyboa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 19:12:26 +0200, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Anyway, I have a really good instinct for picking technology winners, and
> > thus far I put WAP in the same category as MiniDiscs, bubble memory, color
> > fax machines, and quadrapho
PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem... (Document link: Database 'Jim
Stephenson-Dunn', View '($Sent)')
Valdis and Alan, you have a very valid point, infrastructure is not only
expensive but very time consuming. The engineering component (conf
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 19:12:26 +0200, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyway, I have a really good instinct for picking technology winners, and
> thus far I put WAP in the same category as MiniDiscs, bubble memory, color
> fax machines, and quadraphonic sound. I think the growth area
> thats why intelsat and a cosortium of telcos has
> a charity that built a box that is solar powered
> and provides n gsm phones access + 1 64kbps uplink/
> downlink to geostatinary atellites
So that's what, 64/5 = 13 kbps per user? Even as current Internet designs
require ever more bandwidth a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Simpkins t
yped:
>>Valdis, I agree with you a hundred percent. The most
>>expensive part of infrastructure is pulling the
>>cables/fiber necessary to build the infrastrucuture.
thats why intelsat and a cosortium of telcos has a charity that built
a box th
Valdis, I agree with you a hundred percent. The most
expensive part of infrastructure is pulling the
cables/fiber necessary to build the infrastrucuture.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:41:37 +0200, Anthony
> Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > If they are that lacking
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:41:37 +0200, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If they are that lacking in mere wires, they probably aren't in a position
> to profit from access to the Internet in the first place. That is, if they
> lack telephones (and that's all they need for broadband, or
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...
> For some countries it is more feasible for people to
> use mobile technology than to try to put in place the
&
> Do you mean that WAP is:
> - overhyped?
...
Rats. I thought he ment the bit about the frog genes gone awry.
Self-pollenating dino-phibs. Oh well, back to the data.
Cheers,
Eric
> But it would be a grave mistake to cease working on
> future developments while waiting for everyone to be
> able to share what we have now ...
It hasn't gotten as far as sharing. We don't even have the "old" stuff in
place and running, and already people want to replace it.
You know, I'd muc
> For some countries it is more feasible for people to
> use mobile technology than to try to put in place the
> fiber, and copper necessary to allow them to communicate
> using some of what might be called the more traditional
> methods.
If they are that lacking in mere wires, they probably aren
Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:29:15 +0200
From:"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <007201bfe1e7$2b9b5b80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
| work on improving and democratizing existing in
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Simpkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:04 PM
>
> This I can agree with, the next question that
> naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
> for a fixed wireless application, or are we talking
> about yet another s
Alan Simpkins wrote:
> This I can agree with, the next question that
> naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
> for a fixed wireless application,
I'm pretty sure it isn't--IIRC, fixed-wireless equipment gives
point-to-point links at something like T1 speed.
In addition, the fact th
This I can agree with, the next question that
naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
for a fixed wireless application, or are we talking
about yet another set of standards and protocols. I
would tend to
think that one set should work for both.
Regards, Alan
--- John Stracke <[EMAIL
Alan Simpkins wrote:
> For some countries it
> is more feasible for people to use mobile technology
But better still is fixed-wireless, which can deliver bandwidth
more cheaply, because you have more predictable signal
conditions. Unless you're talking about nomadic headers getting
online out i
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
> work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure
Well, sure. Improving--look at MPLS. Democratizing--there used to be (maybe
still is) an annual effort called Net Day, where vol
At 18:29 +0200 29/06/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>I don't understand why so much effort is expended on things like WAP when
>99% of the real world still doesn't have any access at all to the Internet,
>much less wireless access. And even of those who do, most have such slow
>connections that eve
quot;Jon Crowcroft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'IETF Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 09:10
> Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...
>
>
> >
> > a technical discussion worth reading is at
> >
>
http:/
ot;Jon Crowcroft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'IETF Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 09:10
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...
>
> a technical discussion worth reading is at
> http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MikeBanahan/MikeBa
a technical discussion worth reading is at
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MikeBanahan/MikeBanahan1.html
it would seeem (as i've suspected for a while) that the community in
charge of this development has the same problem as the guy who built
jurassic park - they haev no discipline, or underst
At 08:48 AM 6/27/00 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>ok, i was gonna keep out of this. but there was a time when the entire
>academic network of south africa was served by a single 9600 baud slip
>connection, later upgraded to 14.4kb ppp.
>
>and i believe there was a direct parallel in the states, thou
At 14:56 27.06.2000 +, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
>Other UDP ports can be used. There is nothing in the design of ESRO
>that limits UDP port usage. This much is obvious. In fact EMSD uses
>its own UDP port. Other Efficient Applictions can use other UDP ports
>with ESRO. That was part of our de
e-
From: Lloyd Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 2000-06-27 04:05
To: Brijesh Kumar
Cc: 'Vernon Schryver'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: WAP and IP
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Brijesh Kumar wrote:
> Mohsen may be accused of any thing, but calling Mohsen whose aim is to
>
an Kohn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 7:37 PM
To: Taylor, Johnny; Donald E. Eastlake 3rd; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
I certainly hope you're joking.
If not, I can say definitively that this is certainly not Teledesic
ok, i was gonna keep out of this. but there was a time when the entire
academic network of south africa was served by a single 9600 baud slip
connection, later upgraded to 14.4kb ppp.
and i believe there was a direct parallel in the states, though pre-tcp/ip.
randy
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:04:34 +0200, Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?=
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> After 7 months of delay, caused by the IESG, ESRO was published
>> as an RFC in Sept. 1997.
Patrik> There have already been enough discussions on the IETF list about
Patrik>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:23:41 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Harald> At 05:30 26.06.2000 +, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
>> The current status, state and beginning date of that example
>> makes my point.
>>
>> After 7 months of delay, caused by the I
RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> At 15:21 26/06/00 , Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > - persistently, unbendingly claiming that 14000 bit/sec is a bit rate
> >that is radically lower than anything ever before used for TCP/IP.
>
> Those of us who have run voice over IP over 9600 bps HF radio
> fin
At 15:21 26/06/00 , Vernon Schryver wrote:
> - persistently, unbendingly claiming that 14000 bit/sec is a bit rate
>that is radically lower than anything ever before used for TCP/IP.
Those of us who have run voice over IP over 9600 bps HF radio
find the above claim particularly am
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 th
I apologize for this and my previous messages. I didn't realize I was
talking to members of the IPv8 Brigade.
> From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> Mohsen may be accused of any thing, but calling Mohsen whose aim is to
> create an open alternative to WAP is hilarious. And, Mohsen
Vernon Schryver writes
> -Original Message-
> > From: Mohsen BANAN-Public <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > ...
> > There is a genuine need for a reliable efficient transport that
> > accommodates *short* and *occasional* exchanges.
> >
> > There are many occasions where UDP is too little and
At 05:30 26.06.2000 +, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
>The current status, state and beginning date of that example
>makes my point.
>
>After 7 months of delay, caused by the IESG, ESRO was published
>as an RFC in Sept. 1997.
History note:
ESRO (RFC 2188) was delayed, as far as I remember, beca
At 05.30 + 00-06-26, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
> >> IETF/IESG/IAB folks keep saying TCP is good enough for everything.
>
> Patrik> We don't.
>
> Patrik> See for example SCTP described in draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-09.txt and
> Patrik> applied to many applications which for example have t
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 08:38:38 +0200, Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?=
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Patrik> At 00.31 + 00-06-24, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
>> IETF/IESG/IAB folks keep saying TCP is good enough for everything.
Patrik> We don't.
Patrik> See for example SCTP
Mohsen BANAN-Public <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> So why has QMTP... not been published as
> an RFC? I understand Dan Bernstein did submit it for publication.
Sir! I am shocked, *shocked*, that you would imply that non-technical
politics would influence the RFC process! (Your winnings, sir. (T
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, Brijesh Kumar
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Mark Atwood
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 5:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Taylor, Johnny'; 'Donald E. Eastlake 3rd';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Re
At 00.31 + 00-06-24, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
>IETF/IESG/IAB folks keep saying TCP is good enough for everything.
We don't.
See for example SCTP described in draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-09.txt and
applied to many applications which for example have to do with
telephony signalling.
You can a
> From: Mohsen BANAN-Public <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> There is a genuine need for a reliable efficient transport that
> accommodates *short* and *occasional* exchanges.
>
> There are many occasions where UDP is too little and TCP is too much.
I've often heard that from telephant advocates,
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:10:16 -0600 (MDT), Vernon Schryver
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> ...
>> >Add to
>> >that even if there was enough bandwidth, small screen's on some of the
>> >today's devices can't meaningfully display a
> -Original Message-
> The networks that you have mentioned above were in place before IP's
> power became clear. That is a legitimate excuse for their non IP
> nature. I would say the knee of the curve was in 1992.
>
> ReFLEX on the other hand can not use that excuse because it came
afte
> 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.
B
-Original Message-
From: Brijesh Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 1:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: WAP and IP
There were quite lot of responses to my mail on this topic so here is
what I have to say. It is hard to defend the WAP as only possible
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
> > 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
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> >Add to
> >that even if there was enough bandwidth, small screen's on some of the
> >today's devices can't meaningfully display all contents of modern web
> >sites.
>
> Neither can Lynx, a popular text-mode browser.
>
> The fact is that
At 11:39 22.06.2000 -0400, Brijesh Kumar wrote:
>and I noticed that packet loss could be as much as 3 %. CDPD
>modem that I used gave me about 1100 byte throughput using TCP (well,
>half the channel went in framing overheads of the MDLP and over the
>air protocol, and TCP slow starts.). With these
> 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, Richa
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
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
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 n
> 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 Res
There were quite lot of responses to my mail on this topic so here is
what I have to say. It is hard to defend the WAP as only possible
solution or the most elegant solution for any one. Though in the past
few years I spent quite lot of time thinking about how to make data
applications run with l
> 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.
http://www-numi.fnal.gov:8875/overview/overv
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: sinc
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: 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.
&g
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. (Format: TXT=2969 bytes) (Status:
>>INFORMATIONAL)
>
>I still havent found a working implementation of this. Any references?
>Did the c
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
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. (Form
>> 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
%
% 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 t
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 packe
"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.
--
> > 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 comper
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 |==
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. Tw
> 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.
WAP might evolve into something more useful, but I don't see how it will
replace IP in any sense. WAP as it currently exists isn't a solution
to
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 comm
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
ne 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 P
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 respon
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
<[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;
>>
>> >
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'r
> Sean. (who notes you didn't even NOTICE the NAT, if there is one)
I found out about the NATs after I bought my phone but before I tried
to make 6to4 work with it. So even though I am out the cost of the phone,
at least I was spared the additional effort, expense, and frustration
of tr
> 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
> 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
Keith Moore writes:
| > Sprint PCS uses a NAT,
|
| wish I had known that before I bought one of their phones.
| criminals.
Keith, you need a major attitude readjustment.
Sean. (who notes you didn't even NOTICE the NAT, if there is one)
> Sprint PCS uses a NAT,
wish I had known that before I bought one of their phones.
criminals.
Keith
John;
> > You can have IP over HTTP, IP over XML or IP over WAP equally easily.
> >
> > The problem, however, is that the reconstruction point is an
> > intelligent gateway which violates the end to end principle.
>
> Mmm, how so? I'd see it as a router, which just happens to run over a
> higher
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> You can have IP over HTTP, IP over XML or IP over WAP equally easily.
>
> The problem, however, is that the reconstruction point is an
> intelligent gateway which violates the end to end principle.
Mmm, how so? I'd see it as a router, which just happens to run over a
highe
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
>
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 t
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
