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

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:55:58 -0400

> From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[email-masked]>

Oh, I can't resist:

    > 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.

Past history would say that given the investment in WAP (both in dollars,
and in professional terms), I'd be astonished if the most convincing and
correct reasoning had any impact.

If I had time, I'd give you a long list of protocols (many from the IETF)
where the designers were utterly resistant to attempts to explain to them
why their protocol was fundamentally flawed. For a lot of people, nothing
other than brutal failure in the market seems to convince them.

    > 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. ... about architecture and
    > addressing lessons. 

What makes you think they don't?

	Noel

---

From: "Randall R. Stewart" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:33:06 -0500

> What makes you think they don't?

It is very very difficult for someone with a Bell Shaped head
to leave the "circuit switched model". Pushing IP at my former
employer was like pushing LARGE rocks up hill. It can be done,
but it is hard, and there are constantly folks trying to
roll the rocks back down the hill.... sigh.. I guess that
is one of the fundamental reasons why I left... and yes many
of the folks need some lessons in protocol design.. not all of
them, but I could give a list of some that do need quite a few lessons
:-<

There are also amazing market pressures on these folks as well so
some of it is understandable.. but it is rough to live with it
though... :-(

R

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
[email-masked]