Subject: RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

From: Briancon Alain-FAB005 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:47:50 -0500

as one of the technical strategists from motorola who worked on wap, i can
assure all that business and technical constraints and optimizations were
paramount in the design of WAP. WAP has good stuff and bad stuff. it has
implications on technology and business models. rarely do things happen but
accident in the business world.

convergence divergence between WAP, I-mode, XML, and whatever else comes
will follow the same tribulations.

regards,

alain

-----Original Message-----
From: Brijesh Kumar [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 11:18 AM
To: 'John Day'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Day [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> >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-mode is interesting because it uses a sub-set of html, which
makes
> >life lot easier for web based application designers.
>
> Then you need to learn a little bit more about protocol
> design, WAP, and
> the limitations implied by the choices they made.  WAP dug
> themselves a
> very nice hole.

Jon,

What makes you think that the system experts from Motorola, Nortel,
Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months needed
to learn protocol design lessons. Doesn't it occur to you that there
may be reasons for decisions in the design that you may not be aware?
Think!

You haven't given a single technical argument that will convince
system experts in these big corporations that they have dug themselves
a "very nice hole". The meaningless rhetoric "WAP is bad" doesn't
convince any one.

> >NAT *breaks the end-to-end model of IP*. The biggest problem with
NAT
> >is that you can't deliver "push" applications from a server in the
> >global realm to devices in the NAT world without using weird proxy
> >mechanisms. If you do that, that is nothing but a different
> version of
> >"WAP".
>
> Once again, you need to learn a bit more about architecture
> and addressing.

Again, what makes you think that the system experts from Motorola,
Nortel, Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months
needed to learn about architecture
and addressing lessons. Doesn't it occur to you that there may be
reasons for decisions in the design that you may not be aware?  Think!

> So far, I have not seen any"thing NATs break" that good architecture
> implies that they shouldn't.  The IETF chose to have NATs now
> they have
> them, they will have to learn to live with them.  They aren't
> going away.

I am still looking for a method, that doesn't break end to end
paradigm, to deliver "push" applications from a server in global realm
to cellular devices connected with NAT.

Either accept NAT can't provide end to end solutions, or come up with
a solution.

Cheers,

--brijesh
Ennovate Networks Inc.

btw: Some of us have developed systems and devices both on wireless
and wired side. It is easy to criticize than to come up with
alternative solutions.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 15:41:37 +0100 (BST)

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Briancon Alain-FAB005 wrote:

> paramount in the design of WAP.

local optimisations.

Optimize locally, degrade globally.

L.

> WAP has good stuff and bad stuff. it has

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>