RE: Defining "Internet" (or "internet")
Title: RE: Defining "Internet" (or "internet") I found this definition in the INTEROP Book of Carl Malamud. The Internet (note the uppercase "I') is a network infrastructure that supports reasearch, engineering, education, and commercial services. The word internet (with a lowercase "i") refers to any interconnected set of substrates (provided, of course, they are running the internetwork protocol IP) Panagiotis Tsigaridas -Original Message- From: Eric Brunner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Defining "Internet" (or "internet") The Swedish legal definition (Patrik provided the pointer) may not be the only one which attempts to define what "Internet" is, fixed or broken, er, "mobile". Anyone else with a normative legal reference, your favorite jurisdiction or someone else's, please drop me a line. I'll summarize to the list. Eric
Re: Thanks for visiting MP3.com
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 01:52:03 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Thanks again for visiting MP3.com and providing us with your > email address. If you would like to unsubscribe from future > MP3.com announcements, or if you received this message in > error, please see the bottom of this message for instructions. OK.. I'll bite. Is mp3.com spamming non-visitors, or did somebody visit and give the IETF as their e-mail address? Sorry, it's been a long day, and I'd love to use a clue-by-four on somebody, but it's not obvious who to use it on... ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Joe; > SMTP in the Internet is, by definition, over IP. STD1 defined only one > required reliable ordered data stream protocol - TCP. What is your point? Are you saying that, in the Internet, there is some application/transport protocols not over IP but SMTP is exclusively over IP? > > > Multicast _redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof); it > > > could be argued that a service provider sells 'Internet' without selling > > > multicast IP. > > > > See STD1 for a list of "required" protocols. > > Multicasting is RFC1112, one of the 'required' protocols. In RFC 2400, the last STD1 which included information on requirement levels, it is a "recommended", not "required" protocol. I wonder why the information is missing in the recent STD1. Masataka Ohta
Thanks for visiting MP3.com
Title: welcome The MP3.com Welcome Email Thanks again for visiting MP3.com and providing us with your email address. If you would like to unsubscribe from future MP3.com announcements or if you received this message in error, please see the bottom of this message for instructions. Dear Music Fan, At MP3.com, our mission is simple--to be a complete Music Service Provider that brings artists together with their fans. Whether you're looking for new music from your hometown or the other side of the world, you'll find a wealth of free music downloads and services on MP3.com. Since it's all about great music, we want to make sure the tunes are coming in loud and clear. To listen to MP3s, you first need to install an MP3 player. Go here to get set up with one of our recommended players. Once you've got your player installed, the easiest and fastest way to fill it with MP3s is to use the free NetSonic Internet Accelerator. So dive in, explore and expand your music collection on MP3.com! Regards, Michael Robertson CEO MP3.com--Your Premier Music Service Provider P.S. Support your favorite artists and check out their CDs for sale. MP3.com Services Classical Music Channel - Instant access to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and more Send Free Music Greeting Cards - Pick any occasion and attach your favorite MP3 song Catch Live Events - in your area with free Notify Me! email alerts Get Free Songs - Delivered via email with MP3.com Messenger Free MP3 Software - All you'll ever need to make and play MP3s MP3.com Top 40 - See who's topping the charts Free Extras - Such as headsets and more If you'd rather not receive future emails from MP3.com, click here to unsubscribe or forward this email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Copyright © 1996-2000 MP3.com, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal Information, Privacy Policy.
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Joe; > > > > > would pacbell filtering all multicast at all CPE equipemt fall into your > > > > bucket, where do you draw the line? > > > > At IP, as Bob Braden said. > > > > SMTP is _over_ IP. > > Wrong. RFC821 says: > >SMTP is independent of the particular transmission subsystem and >requires only a reliable ordered data stream channel. Appendices A, >B, C, and D describe the use of SMTP with various transport services. >A Glossary provides the definitions of terms as used in this >document. Appendix A is SMTP over TCP (over IP). (I was implying that it was on TOP of IP, not that it was exclusively on top of IP). SMTP in the Internet is, by definition, over IP. STD1 defined only one required reliable ordered data stream protocol - TCP. > > Multicast _redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof); it > > could be argued that a service provider sells 'Internet' without selling > > multicast IP. > > See STD1 for a list of "required" protocols. Multicasting is RFC1112, one of the 'required' protocols. On page 1 of that RFC: Level 0: no support for IP multicasting There is, at this time, no requirement that all IP implementations support IP multicasting. Level 0 hosts will, in general, be unaffected by multicast activity. The only exception arises on some types of local network, where the presence of level 1 or 2 hosts may cause misdelivery of multicast IP datagrams to level 0 hosts. Such datagrams can easily be identified by the presence of a class D IP address in their destination address field; they should be quietly discarded by hosts that do not support IP multicasting. Interestingly, the RFC indicates 'should be quietly dropped' where not supported. There is no requirement that they not be dropped, or that the dropping be quiet. Joe
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Joe; > > > would pacbell filtering all multicast at all CPE equipemt fall into your > > > bucket, where do you draw the line? > > At IP, as Bob Braden said. > > SMTP is _over_ IP. Wrong. RFC821 says: SMTP is independent of the particular transmission subsystem and requires only a reliable ordered data stream channel. Appendices A, B, C, and D describe the use of SMTP with various transport services. A Glossary provides the definitions of terms as used in this document. > Multicast _redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof); it > could be argued that a service provider sells 'Internet' without selling > multicast IP. See STD1 for a list of "required" protocols. Masataka Ohta
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
> From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > > > At IP, as Bob Braden said. > > > > > > SMTP is _over_ IP. > > > > > > Multicast _redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof); it > > > could be argued that a service provider sells 'Internet' without selling > > > multicast IP. > > > > That grossly overstates the difference between multicast IP services and > > classic IP services. For one thing, many multicast applications work > ... > 'Internet' is about speaking IP and ICMP. And which multicast application isn't? > There are many variants of routing; none are required to be deployed > _throughout_ the Internet. Static routes are sufficient, and 'who speaks > what routing protocol' and 'what the routes mean' (CIDR included) is a > matter of consensus among parties exchanging a single routing protocol, > not an Internet-wide requirement. What is the relevance of that to the question of when a package labeled "The Internet" is a fraud? BGP4 is a lot newer than multicasting. Would you say that an ISP with broken routing that makes a significant part of the net unreachable is still legitimately selling "The Internet"? > > It's also a of a stretch to call the 1985 change of class D from > > "unused" or "reserved" to the multicast space a redefinition of the > > IP address space. > > Under classic IP, class D was defined as unused/reserved; > under multicast IP, class D is now defined as multicast. > That is the purest form of the change of a definition. > While it affects only a portion of all IP packets, it did redefine > the meaning of that portion. In exactly what way did it redefine any IP header bits? Yes, what routers must do and the link-layer destination of some IP addresses was tweaked, but little more than what RFC 1122 did to broadcast addresses. The multicast changes were no than many other changes since 1085, including new ICMP types. Would you say an ISP selling "Internet email and web hosting" is honest if its hosts don't do slow start, because slow start wasn't there at the beginning? What about the many other new requirements, such as egress filtering and not advertising routes to RFC 1918 networks? Or the deprecation of RFC 822 promiscuous relaying? > (it redefined the meaning of values of the space, not the partitioning > of the space). More than the meanings of other large chunks of the 32-bit IPv4 space listed in RFC 960 as "reserved"? I'll grant the word "reserved" was a little general, but not enough to matter. The question is not "what was NFSNet in 1985." It is, "in 2000, at what point is a vendor claiming to be selling "The Internet" guilty of false and misleading advertising?" Would you really allow a vendor to sell exactly those services that were available in 1985? Why not pick 1970? If you must do it by date, 1990 or 1995 makes a lot more, but still not much sense. "The Internet" is not a static thing. When (and if) IPv6 takes off, would you say an "Internet" package could exclude the IPv6 universe, including hosts reachable with an embedded IPv4 address? If you're consistent, your answer must be "yse." If it were relevant, I'd ask about the cause for your unreasoning prejudice against multicasting. You might be able to support a claim that multicasting in the Internet is a bad idea, can't work in many ve large internets (small 'i'), is useless except for either trivial applications or applications that can do as well or better with broadcasting (e.g. NTP), or similar. Claiming that multicasting is not part of The Internet because it wasn't in TIP's and IMP's in 1970 is something else. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing vs Route discovery protocol
~ :Hello ~ : ~ :I cannot understand the difference between routing and route discovery ~ :protocols. Is there any? Yes. RDP is designed to discover default gateway(s) by broadcasting rdp request packs. It's just a protocol, which lacks security implications by the way (see l0pht.com advisory). Routing however is just a complex concept of delivering datagrams from one network entity to another. blah blah blah.. hope I won't be flamed by the list for answering a couple of du^H^Hnot so sophisticated questions. :) I just feel bored at 4am in the morning :)
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ... > > > > would pacbell filtering all multicast at all CPE equipemt fall into your > > > > bucket, where do you draw the line? > > > > At IP, as Bob Braden said. > > > > SMTP is _over_ IP. > > > > Multicast _redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof); it > > could be argued that a service provider sells 'Internet' without selling > > multicast IP. > > That grossly overstates the difference between multicast IP services and > classic IP services. For one thing, many multicast applications work > fine, albeit with rather reduced scope, when sent to the local IP broadcast > address instead of a multicast address. For another, since CIDR > "_redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof", are ISP's > that sell non-classful blocks not in the IP business? 'Internet' is about speaking IP and ICMP. There are many variants of routing; none are required to be deployed _throughout_ the Internet. Static routes are sufficient, and 'who speaks what routing protocol' and 'what the routes mean' (CIDR included) is a matter of consensus among parties exchanging a single routing protocol, not an Internet-wide requirement. > It's also a of a stretch to call the 1985 change of class D from > "unused" or "reserved" to the multicast space a redefinition of the > IP address space. Under classic IP, class D was defined as unused/reserved; under multicast IP, class D is now defined as multicast. That is the purest form of the change of a definition. While it affects only a portion of all IP packets, it did redefine the meaning of that portion. (it redefined the meaning of values of the space, not the partitioning of the space). Joe
Routing vs Route discovery protocol
Hello I cannot understand the difference between routing and route discovery protocols. Is there any? Regards Salavat BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Magazov;Salavat;R. FN:Salavat R. Magazov NICKNAME:Sal ORG:University of Kent at Canterbury TEL;HOME;VOICE:+44-1227-472835 X-WAB-GENDER:2 BDAY:2517 EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] EMAIL;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:2706T080032Z END:VCARD
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Thus spake "Brijesh Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 1. A WAP phone without an IP address is not an Internet device. And, > no one claims so. The telcos who offer WAP service (at least in my town) market it as "Wireless Internet Access". They do not advertise it as "wireless application-proxy-based access to certain web pages", which is what they're really selling. > 2. A WAP device can have both IP and non-IP addresses. So a WAP > device could be an Internet device at one time and non-Internet device > a bit later (at least in theory). If it speaks IP, it's Internet. None of the WAP phones I've used or seen so far speak IP. > 3. An IP address is not very useful on most mobile (cellular) devices. With the current billing model of per-minute connection charges and slow speeds, it's not useful. The economics just aren't there for the consumer. If the business model were different, it could definitely be useful -- if my laptop had fast, always-on wireless IP access at a reasonable price, I'd never go to the office. > A lot of useful services and applications can be provided without IP > on the wireless devices. That includes sending and receiving mails > to/from the Internet, and limited web browsing via proxy gateways. Agreed. Those services are useful, and they can be done without IP -- it's just not Internet. Let's not forget one of the most significant reasons the Internet was created was to eliminate the need for network-based application gateways. In this context, WAP devices are anti-Internet. > 4. Wireless web access using IP is already here, but very few bother > to use it. Networks with the ability to handle IP traffic such as CDPD > have traditionally very low (as per my info, under 15% or so) capacity > utilization and just about every network is under utilized, and in big > loss situation, so much for IP access in wireless devices. At the same > time GSM SMS which needs no IP addressing has a tremendous > demands. So go figure out utility and economics of IP addresses in > wireless devices for now. See above. S | | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723 :|::|:Network Design Consultant, HCOE :|||: :|||: 14875 Landmark Blvd #400; Dallas, TX .:|||:..:|||:.Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Bob Braden writes: > -Original Message- > > Jon Postel would have said: If it speaks IP (UDP/TCP are not > necessary), then it's Internet, else not. I will add a bit to this discussion. 1. A WAP phone without an IP address is not an Internet device. And, no one claims so. 2. A WAP device can have both IP and non-IP addresses. So a WAP device could be an Internet device at one time and non-Internet device a bit later (at least in theory). 3. An IP address is not very useful on most mobile (cellular) devices. A lot of useful services and applications can be provided without IP on the wireless devices. That includes sending and receiving mails to/from the Internet, and limited web browsing via proxy gateways. 4. Wireless web access using IP is already here, but very few bother to use it. Networks with the ability to handle IP traffic such as CDPD have traditionally very low (as per my info, under 15% or so) capacity utilization and just about every network is under utilized, and in big loss situation, so much for IP access in wireless devices. At the same time GSM SMS which needs no IP addressing has a tremendous demands. So go figure out utility and economics of IP addresses in wireless devices for now. Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks Inc.
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
> From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > > > would pacbell filtering all multicast at all CPE equipemt fall into your > > > bucket, where do you draw the line? > > At IP, as Bob Braden said. > > SMTP is _over_ IP. > > Multicast _redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof); it > could be argued that a service provider sells 'Internet' without selling > multicast IP. That grossly overstates the difference between multicast IP services and classic IP services. For one thing, many multicast applications work fine, albeit with rather reduced scope, when sent to the local IP broadcast address instead of a multicast address. For another, since CIDR "_redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof", are ISP's that sell non-classful blocks not in the IP business? It's also a of a stretch to call the 1985 change of class D from "unused" or "reserved" to the multicast space a redefinition of the IP address space. (RFC 966 mentions the change. RFC 960 still said "Note: No addresses are allowed with the three highest-order bits set to 1-1-1. These addresses (sometimes called "class D") are reserved.") Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Defining "Internet" (or "internet")
The Swedish legal definition (Patrik provided the pointer) may not be the only one which attempts to define what "Internet" is, fixed or broken, er, "mobile". Anyone else with a normative legal reference, your favorite jurisdiction or someone else's, please drop me a line. I'll summarize to the list. Eric
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > > > > think we mean having unincumbered availability of the common application > > > > > protocols, email, http, ftp, ssh, ... > > > > > > > > that's not quite enough; in the UK we're seeing cable-modem ISPs > > > > attempt to restrict services to those applications, or to a subset of > > > > those applications (lotsa luck setting up an http server or using > > > > ssh.) > > > > ... > > > > > > and also like AOL's redirecting proxies for out-bound SMTP? > > > and the port-25 filtering of many ISP's including UUNET? > > From: Rick H Wesson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > would pacbell filtering all multicast at all CPE equipemt fall into your > > bucket, where do you draw the line? At IP, as Bob Braden said. SMTP is _over_ IP. Multicast _redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof); it could be argued that a service provider sells 'Internet' without selling multicast IP. Joe
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
> Does it need to be if the Web/Wap app can handle this format? web/wap apps handle a very small number of protocols compared to the protocols that are handled by IP and used in practice. Keith
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
hi arindam try any of the WAP Emulators - from Nokia.com , phone.com etc Using that you can get the feel of the WAP world . cheers Aditya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have no access to WAP as it is, so far. Can see a glimpse through the > Internet! Anybody who can give any suggestions however will not get a > prize > > "Parkinson, Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 06-07-2000 03:30:32 PM > > To: 'Jon Crowcroft' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet?? > > Wellas I see it, and belive me I may be wrong 'Its been known' :-) This been > the IETF talks about well Internet ... > > >>I disagree, WAP, Wireless Application Protocol, Its a way of transmitting > >>data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet > >>Umbrella ? > > 1 youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page > 2/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or > UDP/IP > > A)youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page (Yes but you can navigate via WAP > I.E BT Genie) and there are places/portals that transform a webpage to WAP > format. > > B/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or UDP/IP. > Does it need to be if the Web/Wap app can handle this format? > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:19 PM > To: Parkinson, Jonathan > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Is WAP mobile Internet?? > > In message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Parkinson, Jonathan" typed: > > >>I disagree, WAP, Wireless Application Protocol, Its a way of transmitting > >>data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet > >>Umbrella ? > > 1 youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page > 2/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or > UDP/IP > > ergo its not internet, its not Internet, and its not provided by > Internet Service Providers, and this is Very Silly > > WAP is quite a neat idea but its a prototype - as folks have said, SMS > is very cool - generalisations of it are cooler - native IP based ones > cooler stil coz then your application base can benefot from the > breadth and depth of stuff that people develop all around the world > for IP and the disciplines and understanding of markets that ISPs now > have.. > > mobile telephony service providers have a reasonable understanding of > one thing - telephony, based in years of fixed/wireline telephony - > however, this doesnt mean they haev much of a clue when it comes to > software based services that people are exponentiateding in the native > IP world.. > > >>Thanks > >>Jon > >> > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Ashutosh Agarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 2:25 PM > >>To: 'Taylor, Johnny' > >>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > >>Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet?? > >> > >> > >>Hi all, > >>I fully agree with Lars. Even I believe WAP does not fall under the > Internet > >>Umbrella > >> > >> > >>Ashutosh Agarwal > >>e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >>Change your thoughts and you change your world. > >>The Buddha > >> > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Taylor, Johnny [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:15 AM > >>> To: Lars-Erik Jonsson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet?? > >>> > >>> The Internet allows all protocols to in-operate with her. This is the > >>> uniqueness > >>> of the web. Therefore WAP falls within this area! > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Lars-Erik Jonsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:54 AM > >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Subject: Is WAP mobile Internet?? > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Folks!! > >>> > >>> I would like to hear your opinions about how WAP people often say that > WAP > >>> is > >>> "mobile Internet". In my opinion, WAP is NOT mobile Internet at all. > The > >>> Internet is built on the e2e principle and based on the Internet > >>> Protocols, > >>> which WAP is not. I can not tell people that they should not use WAP > (even > >>> if I > >>> have my opinions about WAP). If they believe in WAP that is their > problem, > >>> but > >>> when they try to use the words WAP and Internet in the same sentence I > >>> think > >>> it > >>> is time to clarify a few things. I accept that WAP is there, but be > honest > >>> about > >>> what it is. > >>> > >>> Cheers! > >>> /Lars-Erik (expressing my PERSONAL opinions) > >> > > cheers > >jon > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which > it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privi
RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??
I have no access to WAP as it is, so far. Can see a glimpse through the Internet! Anybody who can give any suggestions however will not get a prize "Parkinson, Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 06-07-2000 03:30:32 PM To: 'Jon Crowcroft' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet?? Wellas I see it, and belive me I may be wrong 'Its been known' :-) This been the IETF talks about well Internet ... >>I disagree, WAP, Wireless Application Protocol, Its a way of transmitting >>data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet >>Umbrella ? 1 youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page 2/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or UDP/IP A)youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page (Yes but you can navigate via WAP I.E BT Genie) and there are places/portals that transform a webpage to WAP format. B/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or UDP/IP. Does it need to be if the Web/Wap app can handle this format? -Original Message- From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:19 PM To: Parkinson, Jonathan Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is WAP mobile Internet?? In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Parkinson, Jonathan" typed: >>I disagree, WAP, Wireless Application Protocol, Its a way of transmitting >>data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet >>Umbrella ? 1 youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page 2/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or UDP/IP ergo its not internet, its not Internet, and its not provided by Internet Service Providers, and this is Very Silly WAP is quite a neat idea but its a prototype - as folks have said, SMS is very cool - generalisations of it are cooler - native IP based ones cooler stil coz then your application base can benefot from the breadth and depth of stuff that people develop all around the world for IP and the disciplines and understanding of markets that ISPs now have.. mobile telephony service providers have a reasonable understanding of one thing - telephony, based in years of fixed/wireline telephony - however, this doesnt mean they haev much of a clue when it comes to software based services that people are exponentiateding in the native IP world.. >>Thanks >>Jon >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Ashutosh Agarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 2:25 PM >>To: 'Taylor, Johnny' >>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >>Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet?? >> >> >>Hi all, >>I fully agree with Lars. Even I believe WAP does not fall under the Internet >>Umbrella >> >> >>Ashutosh Agarwal >>e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>Change your thoughts and you change your world. >>The Buddha >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Taylor, Johnny [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:15 AM >>> To: Lars-Erik Jonsson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet?? >>> >>> The Internet allows all protocols to in-operate with her. This is the >>> uniqueness >>> of the web. Therefore WAP falls within this area! >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Lars-Erik Jonsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:54 AM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Is WAP mobile Internet?? >>> >>> >>> Hi Folks!! >>> >>> I would like to hear your opinions about how WAP people often say that WAP >>> is >>> "mobile Internet". In my opinion, WAP is NOT mobile Internet at all. The >>> Internet is built on the e2e principle and based on the Internet >>> Protocols, >>> which WAP is not. I can not tell people that they should not use WAP (even >>> if I >>> have my opinions about WAP). If they believe in WAP that is their problem, >>> but >>> when they try to use the words WAP and Internet in the same sentence I >>> think >>> it >>> is time to clarify a few things. I accept that WAP is there, but be honest >>> about >>> what it is. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> /Lars-Erik (expressing my PERSONAL opinions) >> cheers jon The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Re: wireless services
Hi James You are certainly correct to some extent . These type of features ARE useful . I myself would like to use them. But why are you segregating these voice features with web/email/WAP?? To be more specific using WAP, we can easily incorporate these features in today's cellular phone. Rember , in WAP we have some thing called the WTAI ( Wireless Telephony Application Interface ) that provides services like auto call back, voice mail etc to mobile handset via concept of WTA Server. Internet has the power to be available to us any time anywhere , and we should use this facility as effectively as possible either via wireline links or Wireless cheers Aditya "James P. Salsman" wrote: > Where, and by whom, is wireless service with the following features offered? > > 1. An option for incoming telephone calls to go directly to voicemail, > transmitting spoken messages asynchronously to a buffer inside the telephone > transceiver, using a reliable transport of high quality audio. Messages > could thereby be played back in regions without good RF conditions, and > replayed any number of times without incurring additional airtime charges. > > 2. A means to send voice messages to email destinations with an Internet > message containing a URL pointing to a web server with a choice of audio > formats from which the message would be played back. Again, it would be > preferable if such messages were buffered on the telephone transceiver, > sent reliably, asynchronously, and using high quality audio, because RF > congestion could cease to be a significant problem if circuit-switched > telephone connections were replaced with the flexibility of packet TDMA. > > 3. A means to send similarly asynchronous messages to telephone > destinations with an automated outbound call announcing the message sent > and offering to play the message upon a touch-tone response, or announcing > the telephone and access numbers with which the message can be retrieved > (in case the announcement ends up in the recipient's voicemail.) > > 4. A means to send instructions for retrieving such messages using > numeric page or SMS messages for other wireless destinations. > > 5. A means for recipients of messages as described in 2-4 above to reply > with spoken or numeric or short text messages. The identity of the message > being replied to should be clear from the characteristics of the reply. > > 6. A serial port on the telephone transceiver providing a PPP link to a > laptop, palmtop, desktop, or server with severed net connection, etc. > > Any one of those features would provide far more value to me and most of > the people I know than WAP. > > Who was/will be first to market with them? > > Asynchronous voice messaging is very useful when replies are easy -- > which is not the case with most voicemail systems in use today. > Effective asynchronous voice messaging will be a more important > application than either web or email service on wireless platforms > because the portable nature of wireless devices is simply antithetical > to bulky keyboards and large displays. > > Cheers, > James
RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Wellas I see it, and belive me I may be wrong 'Its been known' :-) This been the IETF talks about well Internet ... >>I disagree, WAP, Wireless Application Protocol, Its a way of transmitting >>data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet >>Umbrella ? 1 youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page 2/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or UDP/IP A)youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page (Yes but you can navigate via WAP I.E BT Genie) and there are places/portals that transform a webpage to WAP format. B/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or UDP/IP. Does it need to be if the Web/Wap app can handle this format? -Original Message- From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:19 PM To: Parkinson, Jonathan Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is WAP mobile Internet?? In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Parkinson, Jonathan" typed: >>I disagree, WAP, Wireless Application Protocol, Its a way of transmitting >>data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet >>Umbrella ? 1 youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page 2/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or UDP/IP ergo its not internet, its not Internet, and its not provided by Internet Service Providers, and this is Very Silly WAP is quite a neat idea but its a prototype - as folks have said, SMS is very cool - generalisations of it are cooler - native IP based ones cooler stil coz then your application base can benefot from the breadth and depth of stuff that people develop all around the world for IP and the disciplines and understanding of markets that ISPs now have.. mobile telephony service providers have a reasonable understanding of one thing - telephony, based in years of fixed/wireline telephony - however, this doesnt mean they haev much of a clue when it comes to software based services that people are exponentiateding in the native IP world.. >>Thanks >>Jon >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Ashutosh Agarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 2:25 PM >>To: 'Taylor, Johnny' >>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >>Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet?? >> >> >>Hi all, >>I fully agree with Lars. Even I believe WAP does not fall under the Internet >>Umbrella >> >> >>Ashutosh Agarwal >>e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>Change your thoughts and you change your world. >> The Buddha >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Taylor, Johnny [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:15 AM >>> To:Lars-Erik Jonsson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet?? >>> >>> The Internet allows all protocols to in-operate with her. This is the >>> uniqueness >>> of the web. Therefore WAP falls within this area! >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Lars-Erik Jonsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:54 AM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Is WAP mobile Internet?? >>> >>> >>> Hi Folks!! >>> >>> I would like to hear your opinions about how WAP people often say that WAP >>> is >>> "mobile Internet". In my opinion, WAP is NOT mobile Internet at all. The >>> Internet is built on the e2e principle and based on the Internet >>> Protocols, >>> which WAP is not. I can not tell people that they should not use WAP (even >>> if I >>> have my opinions about WAP). If they believe in WAP that is their problem, >>> but >>> when they try to use the words WAP and Internet in the same sentence I >>> think >>> it >>> is time to clarify a few things. I accept that WAP is there, but be honest >>> about >>> what it is. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> /Lars-Erik (expressing my PERSONAL opinions) >> cheers jon
wireless services
Where, and by whom, is wireless service with the following features offered? 1. An option for incoming telephone calls to go directly to voicemail, transmitting spoken messages asynchronously to a buffer inside the telephone transceiver, using a reliable transport of high quality audio. Messages could thereby be played back in regions without good RF conditions, and replayed any number of times without incurring additional airtime charges. 2. A means to send voice messages to email destinations with an Internet message containing a URL pointing to a web server with a choice of audio formats from which the message would be played back. Again, it would be preferable if such messages were buffered on the telephone transceiver, sent reliably, asynchronously, and using high quality audio, because RF congestion could cease to be a significant problem if circuit-switched telephone connections were replaced with the flexibility of packet TDMA. 3. A means to send similarly asynchronous messages to telephone destinations with an automated outbound call announcing the message sent and offering to play the message upon a touch-tone response, or announcing the telephone and access numbers with which the message can be retrieved (in case the announcement ends up in the recipient's voicemail.) 4. A means to send instructions for retrieving such messages using numeric page or SMS messages for other wireless destinations. 5. A means for recipients of messages as described in 2-4 above to reply with spoken or numeric or short text messages. The identity of the message being replied to should be clear from the characteristics of the reply. 6. A serial port on the telephone transceiver providing a PPP link to a laptop, palmtop, desktop, or server with severed net connection, etc. Any one of those features would provide far more value to me and most of the people I know than WAP. Who was/will be first to market with them? Asynchronous voice messaging is very useful when replies are easy -- which is not the case with most voicemail systems in use today. Effective asynchronous voice messaging will be a more important application than either web or email service on wireless platforms because the portable nature of wireless devices is simply antithetical to bulky keyboards and large displays. Cheers, James
Re: Fwd: FC: Pittsburgh politicos don't like criticism at anonymous web site
It worked for me. "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" wrote: > URL is typoed below. It's really www.tribune-review.com > ^ > Donald > > From: Richard Shockey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:51:39 -0500 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >News from our host city... > > > >>>Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:14:02 -0700 > >>>Subject: Online criticism of politicians draws lawsuit > >>>From: Jack Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> > >>>Online criticism of politicians draws lawsuit > >>>City: Pittsburgh, State: PA, Country: United States > >>>Government officials in Pittsburgh have launched a courtroom > >>>assault on a Web site that allows citizens to anonymously > >>>criticize the authorities. (6/30/00) > >>>URL: http://www.tribunereview.com/news/pgs0630.html > >> > >>-- > >>POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology > >>To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html > >>This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ > >>-- > > > > > > >> > >Please Note New Contact Information: > > > >Richard Shockey > >Shockey Consulting LLC > >5237 Sutherland > >St. Louis, MO 63109 > >Voice 314.503.0640 > >eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax) > >INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ><< > > > > - > This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which > is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. > Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand. -- Jonathan Buschmann Siemens Information and Communication Networks S.p.A. CLTB, Cascina Castelletto, 20019 Settimo Milanese (Mi) Italy Phone: (+39-2)43888754 Fax: (+39-2)43887989 [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Sometimes when you fill a vacuum, it still sucks." - Dennis Ritchie
