I thought the real purpose of life was too make
money!!
Joking aside, I agree with Keith Moore, some
things are totally unacceptable and this falls
into that category. Data integrity should be of
the utmost importance in any network. The
InterNet is no exception.
Regards
Mark Paton CEO/DIR. I
> What I oppose strongly, is that people sell weird stuff and call it Internet.
I've never seen a marketing person that wouldn't lie and do exactly that.
If folks want to buy wierd stuff, and they know it's wierd stuff and
are aware of its limitations, I don't have much problem with that.
But I'v
> Joking aside, I agree with Keith Moore, some things are totally
> unacceptable and this falls into that category.
so we try to stay somewhere within the solar system, let's review what
"this" is. it was a discussion with masataka and jon about defining classes
of providers.
From: Randy Bu
>I don't see any problems people making money
>on weird NAT-munging-weirdo-webonly-wap things
>which they sell to customers
"Making money" implies that for every seller
there is a willing buyer. For NAT to have
progressed from a twinkle-in-the-eye to the
near ubiquity that it will have in a few
*>
*> but yes, likely some things in this world are not acceptable to some
*> segment of the population. so don't accept them. but life goes on and
*> things change.
*>
*> randy
*>
*>
Resist entropy.
Bob Braden
> masataka was saying that he could classify providers given a rather fixed
> model. i was saying that the world changes and that providers will find
> new business models and bend masataka's rigid classification.
yes, but the desire to have classification of providers is significantly
motiviat
Bob;
> *> but yes, likely some things in this world are not acceptable to some
> *> segment of the population. so don't accept them. but life goes on and
> *> things change.
> *>
> *> randy
Changes are already implied by RC1958, which I refer.
As things change, new RFCs can be issu
Randy;
> > My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an Informational
> > RFC.
> >
> > It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions
> > of various bodies including IETF.
>
> of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and
> find new
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > Here in Japan we have 8 million non-WAP mobile internet users,
>
> uh, no. if you don't have IP to the phone, it's not mobile Internet.
> calling it Internet is just deceptive advertising.
I agree.
I have cell phone with an IP address. When it is powered on I can ping
> TSIGARIDAS PANAGIOTIS wrote:
>
> I believe, I found part of the following text in WAP Forum's WEB-pages.
> However, I think the answer -from business and technology point of view-
> is simple;
>
> Is WAP mobile Internet ? Yes and NO
>
> WAP is using existing Internet standards. The WAP arch
Jon:
> personal comment
> Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of
> internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these
> and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of
> organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged
11 matches
Mail list logo
