> > Well, there is a big difference between WAP's breaking the e2e model
> > and i-mode. WAP does an application gateway and uses no Internet
> > protocols. At least, i-mode is using IP, TCP, HTTP, etc.
> Who cares what protocol a device runs as long as it delivers the
> application that satisfies its intended users? Most subscribers
> couldn't care less if i-mode used CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and TCP.
I agree that most users don't know or care what transport they use. However,
the choice of transport and network layer protocols has real consequences, and
some of those consequences are things that subscribers do care about.
Your own example illustrates this quite nicely. As it happens I've dealt with
operating Internet application protocols over CLNP/CONS and TP0/TP4, and the
transport-level gateways this sort of practice engenders are all too often a
trouble spot for the users of the service. And these were small scale
deployments. Large scale stuff would be even more problematic.
> i-mode is interesting because it uses a sub-set of html, which makes
> life lot easier for web based application designers.
Yes, this is indeed an interesting and important part of i-mode. But the
transport choices are also interesting and important.
Ned
