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
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
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
> -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
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
> 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
> 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
>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. I don't meant to defend NAT, but
many/most existing Internet protocols and applications do work over it
with few if an
Phil;
> The best defense against WAP is an open handheld platform that allows
> end users (and independent vendors and open-source developers) to run
> applications and network protocols of their own choice. As long as
> the service providers support IP (perhaps in addition to WAP), the
> open p
I've worked in the wireless data field for a long time, first in
amateur packet radio, then on CDMA digital cellular at Qualcomm.
Naturally, what I say here are only my personal opinions.
I also scratched my head when WAP came out. It just didn't make any
technical sense. I see I'm not the only o
Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
> In the WAP model, by contrast, the WAP gateway
> operated by the Service Provider plays the active
> role of translating and storing web content, and
> therefore controls access to the content by the
> end-user.
I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate. The content provid
Mohsen Banan,
I tried hard to agree what you said - but many inaccuracies and
assumptions made in the article made my task so hard that I had to
finally give up reading it. Having spent last several years in the
wireless industry, and also having written some "not-so-open" as you
say, but widely
[ Please distribute this as widely as possible, wherever appropriate. ]
The WAP Trap
An Expose of the Wireless Application Protocol
Mohsen Banan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for:
Free Protocols Foundation
http://www.FreeProtoco
50 matches
Mail list logo
