Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Patrik Fältström
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.

Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP

2000-06-22 Thread Masataka Ohta
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 the

Where is the OID dot convention spelled out?

2000-06-22 Thread Michael Mealling
For all the ASN.1 folks out there: I'm in the midst of writing up the OID URN namespace document (see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-oid-urn-00.txt) and it has come to my attention that none of the ASN.1 standards define the dot-notation that we use in all sorts of RFCs.

Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Magnus Danielson
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. Eriksson. April

Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread John Stracke
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. --

Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Magnus Danielson
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: since the most effective way to

Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Matt Crawford
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.

RE: WAP and IP

2000-06-22 Thread Brijesh Kumar
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

Re: IP over MIME

2000-06-22 Thread Robert G. Ferrell
Consider the possibilities of a neutrino beam -- no media costs and lower latency than direct point-to-point fiber. I think IP over Human Alpha Waves (IP-HAW) might be promising, too. RGF Robert G. Ferrell Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.

Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Eric Brunner
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

Common Radio Access Protocol Set (CRAPS) BOF

2000-06-22 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given that the CRAPS BOF announcement has been sent out by Scott, Phil and I would like to send out an invitation to anyone that wishes to have a slot at the BOF in Pittsburgh. However, given that we have little face to face time, we would stress that we are interested in "presentations" that

Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Chuck Kaekel
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 now.

RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Brijesh Kumar
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

RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Lee John-W15376
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 writes, It's my understanding that

Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP

2000-06-22 Thread Mohsen BANAN-Public
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, Richard

RE: WAP and IP

2000-06-22 Thread Harald Tveit Alvestrand
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

RE: WAP and IP

2000-06-22 Thread Vernon Schryver
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 the Internet

RE: Where is the OID dot convention spelled out?

2000-06-22 Thread Peter Furniss
Michael Mealling sent : For all the ASN.1 folks out there: I'm in the midst of writing up the OID URN namespace document (see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-oid-urn-00.txt) and it has come to my attention that none of the ASN.1 standards define the dot-notation that

RE: Where is the OID dot convention spelled out?

2000-06-22 Thread Christian Huitema
The notation of OID strings as 1.3.6.1.4.1 started appearing in the ISODE ASN.1 compiler, in the late 80's. It was not part of the ASN.1 standard; in fact, ASN.1 defines its own set of format, that can mix numbers and litterals. In ASN.1, this was called a "value notation." A standard ASN.1

Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Masataka Ohta
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

RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)

2000-06-22 Thread Mahadevan Iyer
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 using

RE: WAP and IP

2000-06-22 Thread Ashish Sood
-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