Subject: imode far superior to wap

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 06:03:29 -0700 (PDT)

Apparently WAP is collapsing, both in terms of the general opinion 
of engineers and pundits, and now customer revenues.  The Invisible 
Hand needs to slap some sense into the overly-greedy WAP Forum and 
their all-too-pervasive accomplices.

Imode is far more widely used in Japan, as it is a very superior open 
standard that anyone can author and browse on any platform.  I would 
ask that everyone in the IETF who cares about these things make an 
informal personal effort to try to get cellular carriers to migrate 
towards a solution like imode.  Looking around a Google search on 
"imode" will pretty clearly show how it works.

I don't know if cellular phones cause brain damage (although perhaps 
that could explain the WAP Forum's pathetic bytecode-based rejection 
of Moore's Law), but trying to use WAP is like viewing Medusans in 
the Star Trek universe [TOS episode 60, "Is There In Truth No Beauty?" 
http://www.lcarscom.net/tos3.htm ].

Cheers,
James

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 17:33:06 +0200

> "imode" will pretty clearly show how it works.

... 

James,

I doubt that you will find support from IETF folks for something that
breaks the end-to-end model of IP (as Imode and WAP do as they are
implemented today). I want to be able to ssh to my phone (or
equivalent). Anything below that is just telephantisms. 

Regards,
-- 
Måns Nilsson                    DNS Technichian
+46 709 174 840                 NIC-SE
+46 8 545 85 707                MN1334-RIPE

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:55:17 -0400

> equivalent). Anything below that is just telephantisms. 

IBM announced a Linux-powered wristwatch.  No word on if it runs NTP. ;)

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:06:50 -0700

>breaks the end-to-end model of IP (as Imode and WAP do as they are

The WAP folks made a presentation to the Adelaide IETF, this past 
Spring.  The comments from the audience were rather pointed, strong and 
negative, along the lines you note.

d/

---

From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:27:46 -0400

James,

We have gone through WAP v/s non-WAP threads several times on this
list. Let us hope this does not become another meaningless thread with
little technical merits in the arguments.

What is the use of criticizing a technology? If it is not good for a
purpose, or only the second best, it will die itself. IETF, ISO or ITU
can't sustain any standard unless someone in the world sees some
merits in it. Some people out there see WAP is good for them, and some
others see it a temporary diversion from the "real" deal. So what is
new about it.

Cheers,

--brijesh
Ennovate Networks Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James P. Salsman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 9:03 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: imode far superior to wap
>
>

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:53:52 -0400

>others see it a temporary diversion from the "real" deal. So what is

Actually, nothing.  The last round of "WAP is a trap" discussion on 
this list finally forced me to go look at it.  The fascinating thing 
about WAP is how closely it resembles Videotex.  The similarities are 
very close.  There are probably not many around who ever even saw 
Videotex.  It would be interesting to know if the similarity is 
accidental or on purpose.  It might tell us a lot about the current 
state of education in protocol design or the dichotomy in the 
cultures of protocol designers.

It might also give us some insight into how we can expect WAP to play 
out.  It certainly gives us plenty of reasons to expect a particular 
future.

I'd be curious what prompted Salsman's note.

Take care,
john

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT)

>... breaks the end-to-end model of IP (as Imode and WAP do as they are
> implemented today).

WAP does, but apparently i-Mode does not.  The i-Mode vendors claim 
that you can plug your laptop into your i-Mode phone in Japan (and get 
speeds far faster than 9600 bps on newer phones), and someone on this 
IETF list suggested that configuration provides internet access like 
PPP in response to my questions here some weeks ago.

Would an actual i-Mode DoCoMo customer who has used such a 
configuration please describe what it provides?  TCP?  UDP?  ICMP?  
How are connections maintained when radio contact is lost?  
What kind of bandwith is typically observed, and under what conditions?
How are addresses assigned?  Does it involve NAT?

Cheers,
James

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:49:58 +1000

There are actually operational issues if not standards related ones here.

Discussion in Australia about management of the .AU ccTLD is discussing
amongst other things services like !Banggo for WAPsters who cannot stand
to try and type alpha URI and are therefore using a numeric redirection
schema to get short URL off the number-pad to jump off to websites.

This has a direct impact on what people think DNS is providing, what
'addressing' and naming mean for mixed-protocol/application contexts, and
probably some societal/governance issues as well.

The horror, the horror...

cheers
	-George
--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: [email-masked]    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:29:57 +0800

Not sure if it is relevant but i-mode is working on an end-to-end IP
system now which will be deploy sometime next year.

One of the original reason that i-mode didnt go pure IP is they couldnt
get enough IP address for it (they designed i-mode to handle 6M users
originally) and that is quite huge for APNIC.

-James Seng

---

From: Renfield Kuroda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:45:55 +0900

> system now which will be deploy sometime next year.

Really? I am in Tokyo and follow wireless developments, especially i-mode,
quite closely, and I've never heard of such a plan.
Can you elaborate?

Thanks,

r e n

--
ascii: r e n f i e l d
octal: \162 \145 \156 \146 \151 \145 \154 \144
hex: \x72 \x65 \x6e \x66 \x69 \x65 \x6c  \x64
morgan stanley dean witter japan
e-business technologies | engineering and strategy

---

From: Steven Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:58:55 +0200 (CEST)

> originally) and that is quite huge for APNIC.

IPv6 has been around for quite some time now, do you know what plans they
have to utilise this?

-- 
steven

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:20:44 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, James P. Salsman wrote:

> WAP does, but apparently i-Mode does not.

No. it's the world's biggest NAT, and NAT *breaks the end-to-end
model of IP*.

L.

still, I'm pathetically grateful you're not talking about audio upload.

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

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:34:43 -0400

> quite closely, and I've never heard of such a plan.

The guy from NTT Docomo who spoke at Adelaide mentioned it.  I don't remember
details, though.

--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"Fate just isn't what it used to be." --Hobbes|
[email-masked]|                                              |
\===============================================================/

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:17:33 +0200

=> according to a IPv6 Forum internal mail:
   
    NTTDoCoMo confirmed that IPv6 will be used in their backbone
    starting Jan 2001 in a panel session with Fujitsu and the IPv6 Forum
    at WTC.

[email-masked]

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:23:36 +0859 ()

John;

> > Really?

No.

> The guy from NTT Docomo who spoke at Adelaide mentioned it.  I don't remember

The detail you wrote in IETF ML on:

	Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 14:30:54 -0400

in

	Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

is

: Didn't someone from DOCOMO present in Adelaide, and say they were
: planning to go to running IP in the handsets?

That's all.

I guess you don't understand the phrase "end-to-end", the essence of
the Internet.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:22:36 +0859 ()

Francis;

>     starting Jan 2001 in a panel session with Fujitsu and the IPv6 Forum

FYI, it's equally easy for docomo to use IPv4, IPv6, OSI or any other
protocol, because their backbone is a private network.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:16:54 +0859 ()

Nilsson;

> equivalent). Anything below that is just telephantisms. 

I'm afraid that ssh for phone is just another telephantisms. :-)

If you want phone with real Internet style, see our INET paper:

	http://www.isoc.org/inet2000/cdproceedings/4a/4a_3.htm

	The "Simple Internet Phone" has an architecture tuned for
	a future situation in which non-Internet networks, such
	as IP-based private telephone networks, will disappear.
	While the "Simple Internet Phone" is a form of voice over
	Internet Protocol (VoIP), most, if not all, VoIP protocols
	are designed placing the priority in the affinity to the
	telephone network. However, it is obvious that the telephone
	network will be replaced by the Internet, and will eventually
	disappear. At that time, most of the features of VoIP protocols
	will become obsolete. Instead, the "Simple Internet Phone" is
	designed placing the priority in the affinity to the Internet
	and its architectural principles as an "end-to-end," "globally
	connected" and "scalable" IP network. As a result, most
	features of VoIP are substituted by the existing Internet
	protocols. With Internet phones, callees are required to have
	persistent connection to the Internet with globally unique
	addresses, which helps to promote the healthy development
	of the Internet.

Dispite all the hypes of VoIP people on QoS with private IP network
(if you are hyped, your phone can not be free and can not compete
with telephone network), I just confirmed voice quality good enough
between Taiwan and Japan through USA.

Run this kind of protocol over Ricochet terminal and WAP and iMODE
will disapper.

							Masataka Ohta

PS

You can purchase a prototype terminal adapter.

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:44:39 -0400

>No. it's the world's biggest NAT, and NAT *breaks the end-to-end

Well, there is a big difference between WAP's breaking the e2e model 
and i-mode.  WAP does an application gateway and uses no Internet 
protocols.  At least, i-mode is using IP, TCP, HTTP, etc.

Accusing them of breaking it, then puts the vast majority of subnets 
connected to the Internet into the same category.   What's your 
point?  It hardly seems appropriate to put i-mode and WAP in the same 
category.

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:11:56 +0200

> I'm afraid that ssh for phone is just another telephantisms. :-)

Compared to your much healthier view, yes. I do agree that it is very
interesting. I was perhaps thinking the same but failed to express; the
hand terminal is going to be a computing device with voice capability
rather than a phone with datacom kludges. Then it is immediately obvious
why one wants to make a VT-style terminal connection to it. :-) (ie SSH)

---

From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:33:26 -0400

> From: John Day [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >

John,

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.

> point?  It hardly seems appropriate to put i-mode and WAP in the
same

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".

Cheers,

--brijesh
Ennovate Networks INc.

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:05:04 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
>...
> 

Excellent!  That is far better than any IP telephony proposal I've 
ever seen.

> Run this kind of protocol over Ricochet terminal and WAP and iMODE

Well, Ricochet doesn't have a tenth the coverage that digital 
cellular does, at least around here:
  http://www.ricochet.com/about_us/coverage_maps/index.html

But if Ricochet integrated Simple Internet Phone in their tranceivers, 
the demand would probably allow them to expand their coverage fast 
and far, which would be great.
 
> You can purchase a prototype terminal adapter.

Please tell me how.  I want a few.  

Cheers,
James

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:00:41 -0700 (PDT)

> couldn't care less if i-mode used CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and TCP.

I agree that most users don't know or care what transport they use. However,
the choice of transport and network layer protocols has real consequences, and
some of those consequences are things that subscribers do care about.

Your own example illustrates this quite nicely. As it happens I've dealt with
operating Internet application protocols over CLNP/CONS and TP0/TP4, and the
transport-level gateways this sort of practice engenders are all too often a
trouble spot for the users of the service. And these were small scale
deployments. Large scale stuff would be even more problematic.

> life lot easier for web based application designers.

Yes, this is indeed an interesting and important part of i-mode. But the
transport choices are also interesting and important.

				Ned

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:42:09 +0859 ()

Nilsson;

> why one wants to make a VT-style terminal connection to it. :-) (ie SSH)

Huh?

You may have your reasons. However, commercially speaking, next
obvious step of the evolution of mobile Internet terminals is
removal of ten keys replaced by those of Nintendos and Play
Stations.

People will be busy to play network games with their own special
protocols over flat rated mobile Internet.

That's why end to end transparancy is commecially important.

People can still input numbers and other characters slowly (some
quickly) for less important applications like phone calling or
web browsing.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:07:31 +0859 ()

Ned;

> I agree that most users don't know or care what transport they use.

No one cares, because intended users don't care and unintended users
use something else.

But it is an application specific issue to be discussed outside of
IETF (maybe in W3C).

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:34:49 -0400

>deployments. Large scale stuff would be even more problematic.

For the record, the protocol design problems of WAP have little to do 
with anything that you or Ohta are talking about.  A quick look at 
the WAP protocols, shows this. The WAP designers have made protocol 
design decisions that severely limit their ability to succeed.

My previous note was very much to the point.  WAP most closely 
resembles Videotext.  In some sense, one could conclude that the 
designers of WAP were assuming that it would fail.  Hence, they 
developed an architecture that can not exploit its success or exploit 
new technology. Many of the errors they have made are the same ones, 
we saw the PTTs make with Videotext.  In fact, they are so similar 
that without knowing the age of the designers I can't tell if it was 
accidental or on purpose.  If WAP is widely successful and/or as new 
technology appears, a wholesale replacement of WAP will be required 
that can be exploited by others to steal their customers.

The WAP architecture is fundamentally flawed ways in significant ways 
that i-mode is not.  I-mode is in a much better position to 
capitalize on its success.  And it has little if anything to do with 
the knee jerks about NATs or "CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and TCP" 
none of which had anything to do with Videotext.  I suggest you read 
the WAP specs and see for yourselves.

Take care,
john

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:08:39 -0400

> I guess you don't understand the phrase "end-to-end", the essence of

Of course I do.  Why are you insulting me? And why are you treating my former post
as the only existing information on the topic?

He *did* say they intended to go to IP; I'm pretty sure he said they wanted to go
to end-to-end IP.  Unfortunately, my notes from the plenary are pretty sketchy,
and the proceedings just have his slides, which talk about "Further convergence to
IETF Internet standard" once they start deploying 3G, but don't give details.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"HTTP is what happens in the absence of good |
[email-masked]|design." -- Keith Moore                      |
\==============================================================/