Subject: RE: WAP and IP

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:21:28 -0600 (MDT)

I apologize for this and my previous messages.  I didn't realize I was
talking to members of the IPv8 Brigade.

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

> ...
> Mohsen may be accused of any thing, but calling Mohsen whose aim is to
> create an open alternative to WAP is hilarious. And, Mohsen at least
> understands the issues involved in wireless cellular communication,
> something that can be said of many other TCP/IP for every thing
> advocates.

There's plenty of hilarity to go around in any discussion where people
are 

  - insisting that a protocol is patent free without bothering to do a
   patent search for all of the ideas used in the protocol.  Never mind
   the mysterious ways that patents can appear, or the enormous joke in
   the notion of being able to predict what the patent system might
   consider a patentable idea.

  - claiming that Mohsen BANAN's protocols are more open than those of
   WAP despite their editorial history.

  - persistently, unbendingly claiming that 14000 bit/sec is a bit rate 
   that is radically lower than anything ever before used for TCP/IP.

  - claiming that the current and prospective webphone screens and
   keybaords could be useful for anything that might need even 140 bit/sec.
   Anyone who has tried to use those silly screens, keyboards, and thumb
   wheels merely to configure a phone or use a built-in directory (and
   isn't a telephant salescritter) must laugh at that the image of surfing
   the web, getting directions, buying anything other than air time, or
   doing anything you couldn't do just as well with an analog cell phone
   everywhere on earth that WAP will be available.

  - claiming that the IETF or any other standards committee could,
   even if it wanted, prevent or slow the adoption of genuinely better
   protocols.

  - demanding that "access" to the IETF publishing process be openned.

Everyone who advocates keeping the RFC press open to any except official
products of working groups should read Mohsen BANAN's RFC's and
draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-08.txt

It's not enough to talk about keeping the IETF open.  You must look at
the concrete consequences of the current implementation of openness.
A press that tries to publish absolutely everything soon becomes a vanity
press that publishes nothing read by anyone except its author.  Editing
is not only about suggesting fixes for spelling errors.  An editor that
rarely rejects a manuscript isn't.  An open standards organization without
real technical editing, including a lot of rejections with prejudice, is
in the end not open to anything except lunatic adovcacy.

We all, including the IPv8 Brigade, would be better served if the IETF
left electronic vanity publishing to the world wide web, and only
published official products of working groups of "legacy programmers."
If no working group will adopt a draft or even form to adopt a draft, then
the idea is bad or the IETF is dead, and in either case, the IETF should
not publish it.

As someone says, openness to good ideas does not involve opening your
skull and letting your brain fall out.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:03:39 -0400

>    that is radically lower than anything ever before used for TCP/IP.

         Those of us who have run voice over IP over 9600 bps HF radio
find the above claim particularly amusing.  (By the way, there
are deployed uses of voice over IP over 9600 bps HF radio today.  :-)

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: "Marcus Leech" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:29 -0400

> are deployed uses of voice over IP over 9600 bps HF radio today.  :-)
My first use of TCP/IP over radio was at 1200bps--although I admit that
  I didn't use it for VoIP :-) :-)

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Leech                             Mail:   Dept 8M70, MS 012, FITZ
Advisor                                  Phone: (ESN) 393-9145  +1 613 763 9145
Security Architecture and Planning       Fax:   (ESN) 395-1407  +1 613 763 9435
Nortel Networks                          [email-masked]
-----------------Expressed opinions are my own, not my employer's------

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:48:10 -0700

ok, i was gonna keep out of this.  but there was a time when the entire
academic network of south africa was served by a single 9600 baud slip
connection, later upgraded to 14.4kb ppp.

and i believe there was a direct parallel in the states, though pre-tcp/ip.

randy

---

From: Frank Kastenholz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:43:13 -0400

>and i believe there was a direct parallel in the states, though pre-tcp/ip.

i worked for a networking equipment company in the late 80's
our link to the net then was 1200bd dialup. a quite common
connection technology for folks who couldn't afford the
obscene charges for leased lines back then. somehow we still
managed to move mail and news, look at gif files and so on.

and that was not pre-tcp/ip.... it _was_ pre-vj, in the bad old
days of congestive collapse. somehow, data moved around... 

frank kastenholz