ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2000-06-21 09:00:02
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
stand point.
Then you will find IP is on the rise today and various Platforms are
integrating or
converging IP to their core networks. But when you equate the moves that are
taking
place for future solutions to the commercial or residential market. such as
The Teledesic 
Model or AOL or Manasamen; then you began to get a glimpse 
of the future of WAP. Therefore I think it becomes quite important for this
group to 
keep WAP as one of the main protocols of discussion / solutions. That's my
take on WAP!

Coming from the Brain!

JT 


-----Original Message-----
From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 7:31 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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 <magda(_at_)netinsight(_dot_)se>
To:  mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp
Cc:  karn(_at_)QUALCOMM(_dot_)COM, 
public(_at_)mohsen(_dot_)banan(_dot_)1(_dot_)byname(_dot_)net, 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
In-Reply-To:  
<200006202042(_dot_)FAA17413(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
References:  <200006202022(_dot_)NAA27444(_at_)servo(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
                
<200006202042(_dot_)FAA17413(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
Message-Id:  <20000621104040S(_dot_)magda(_at_)netinsight(_dot_)se>
Date:  Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:40:40 +0200

From: Masataka Ohta 
<mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
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'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 true end-to-end
IP service by tunneling it through a NAT with something vaguely
resembling mobile IP.

You can have IP over HTTP, IP over XML or IP over WAP equally easily.

With IP over MIME you could even establish an IP connection over a mail
gateway, firewall bypassing... Hmm.... the same goes for http proxies.

The problem, however, is that the reconstruction point is an
intelligent gateway which violates the end to end principle.

Havent we learned to love and hate these breaking of layering?

You can put basically anything over anything else when it comes to just
moving
bits around. While doing this we get the additional benefits of increased
propagation delay, increased overhead, often complexer solutions and a new
bag of problems in the interworking area. Lovely. We can feed a lot of
research and engineer mouths this way.

Now, while NAT and WAP both intend to solve some problems, they provide
ground
for new problems which naturally require new solutions. We should really
ask
weither some of these problems really should be solved within that scope or
not. If IP over WAP is a bag of worms, maybe one should bypass WAP
alltogether.
Where we know that neither ATM, IP or NAT solves all the problems neither
will
WAP.

It is not really what you could do as what you should do. Naturally there
is
allways politically and technical preferences which prohibits some
solutions.

Cheers,
Magnus