Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??

From: "Taylor, Johnny" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:59:39 -0400

Great Catch. It doesn't get any more Mobile on the Internet then that!

-----Original Message-----
From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 8:24 AM
To: 'Lars-Erik Jonsson'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??

Okay WAP at the moment is only in its baby stage, hence a few mobile phones
have it and a few other devices, and yes at the moment its not very good,
but that's because of the current technology. I know I keep going on about
it, but, I'm sure Bluetooth can and will change the way people use WAP and
as the applications become Bluetooth enabled, WAP is a perfect way of
transmitting data. 

Have a look at
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F791000/791297.stm
Sony has said It is planning to put the Bluetooth short range wireless
technology in almost every gadget it produces making it easier to get at
data in any device, whether that is messages, music or video. 

IE
Walkmans, laptops, digital cameras and even electronic pets like the Aibo
robotic. 

WAP will be a perfect side technology for this. 

'This is just my opinion and not that of Compaq's (Yet :-))'

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars-Erik Jonsson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Is WAP mobile Internet??

Hi Folks!!

I would like to hear your opinions about how WAP people often say that WAP
is
"mobile Internet". In my opinion, WAP is NOT mobile Internet at all. The
Internet is built on the e2e principle and based on the Internet Protocols,
which WAP is not. I can not tell people that they should not use WAP (even
if I
have my opinions about WAP). If they believe in WAP that is their problem,
but
when they try to use the words WAP and Internet in the same sentence I think
it
is time to clarify a few things. I accept that WAP is there, but be honest
about
what it is.

Cheers!
/Lars-Erik (expressing my PERSONAL opinions)

---

From: "Taylor, Johnny" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:03:50 -0400

Good Point & I will tap into Japan Wireless infra-structure!

-----Original Message-----
From: Renfield Kuroda [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 9:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??

I don't think WAP Mobile Internet any more than TCP/IP is Internet.
The Mobile Internet is data/communication devices you carry around with you.

Here in Japan we have 8 million non-WAP mobile internet users, plus another
2
million WAP users, and the numbers are exploding.

But, and I know this may be the wrong mailing list for this comment, the
point is a
non-technical one. Users don't care if it's WAP/WML, or cHTML or MML or text
SMS, on
a cdmaONE network, PDC-P, or what.

Technically, I think many agree that WAP and its various technical standards
are
ill-conceived and poorly executed, but that doesn't mean the potential of
the Mobile
Internet isn't there. I personally think if WAP migrated to xHTML and
operators
looked at the successes here in Japan, than the next generation of WAP
phones (or
whatever you call them) really can and will be Mobile Internet.

Regards,

r e n

is
if I
but
> when they try to use the words WAP and Internet in the same sentence I
think it
about

--
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: "Lars-Erik Jonsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:18:18 +0200

The Web is NOT the Internet. The Web is one Internet application. 

/L-E

>The Internet allows all protocols to in-operate with her. This is the
>uniqueness
>of the web. Therefore WAP falls within this area!
>
>From: Lars-Erik Jonsson [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:54 AM
>To: [email-masked]

---

From: Ashutosh Agarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:55:00 +0530

Hi all,
I fully agree with Lars. Even I believe WAP does not fall under the Internet
Umbrella

Ashutosh Agarwal	
e-mail : [email-masked]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change your thoughts and you change your world.
							The Buddha 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> From:	Taylor, Johnny [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:15 AM
> To:	Lars-Erik Jonsson; [email-masked]
> think

---

From: Ashutosh Agarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:00:06 +0530

Well the web is indeed the Internet we are talking about
The Internet is an internet, but an internet is not an Internet always

Ashutosh Agarwal	

> From:	Lars-Erik Jonsson [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 05, 2000 6:48 PM
> To:	Taylor, Johnny; [email-masked]

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:58:58 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>

> ...
> > > At IP, as Bob Braden said.
> > >
> > > SMTP is _over_ IP.
> > >
> > > Multicast _redefines_ IP (or portions of the address space thereof); it
> > > could be argued that a service provider sells 'Internet' without selling
> > > multicast IP.
> > 
> > That grossly overstates the difference between multicast IP services and
> > classic IP services.  For one thing, many multicast applications work
> ...

> 'Internet' is about speaking IP and ICMP.

And which multicast application isn't?

> There are many variants of routing; none are required to be deployed
> _throughout_ the Internet. Static routes are sufficient, and 'who speaks
> what routing protocol' and 'what the routes mean' (CIDR included) is a
> matter of consensus among parties exchanging a single routing protocol,
> not an Internet-wide requirement.

What is the relevance of that to the question of when a package labeled
"The Internet" is a fraud?
BGP4 is a lot newer than multicasting.  Would you say that an ISP with
broken routing that makes a significant part of the net unreachable is
still legitimately selling "The Internet"?

> > It's also a of a stretch to call the 1985 change of class D from
> > "unused" or "reserved" to the multicast space a redefinition of the
> > IP address space. 
>
> Under classic IP, class D was defined as unused/reserved;
> under multicast IP, class D is now defined as multicast. 
> That is the purest form of the change of a definition.
> While it affects only a portion of all IP packets, it did redefine
> the meaning of that portion.

In exactly what way did it redefine any IP header bits?  Yes, what routers
must do and the link-layer destination of some IP addresses was tweaked,
but little more than what RFC 1122 did to broadcast addresses.  The
multicast changes were no than many other changes since 1085, including
new ICMP types.  Would you say an ISP selling "Internet email and web
hosting" is honest if its hosts don't do slow start, because slow start
wasn't there at the beginning?  What about the many other new requirements,
such as egress filtering and not advertising routes to RFC 1918 networks?
Or the deprecation of RFC 822 promiscuous relaying?

> (it redefined the meaning of values of the space, not the partitioning
> of the space).

More than the meanings of other large chunks of the 32-bit IPv4 space
listed in RFC 960 as "reserved"?  I'll grant the word "reserved" was a
little general, but not enough to matter.

The question is not "what was NFSNet in 1985."  It is, "in 2000, at what
point is a vendor claiming to be selling "The Internet" guilty of false
and misleading advertising?"  Would you really allow a vendor to sell
exactly those services that were available in 1985?  Why not pick 1970?
If you must do it by date, 1990 or 1995 makes a lot more, but still not
much sense.  "The Internet" is not a static thing.

When (and if) IPv6 takes off, would you say an "Internet" package could
exclude the IPv6 universe, including hosts reachable with an embedded IPv4
address?  If you're consistent, your answer must be "yse."

If it were relevant, I'd ask about the cause for your unreasoning prejudice
against multicasting.  You might be able to support a claim that
multicasting in the Internet is a bad idea, can't work in many ve large
internets (small 'i'), is useless except for either trivial applications
or applications that can do as well or better with broadcasting (e.g.
NTP), or similar.  Claiming that multicasting is not part of The Internet
because it wasn't in TIP's and IMP's in 1970 is something else.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]