W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: IBM patents tunneling HTTP through another protocal

From: <Telford001@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:14:36 EDT
Message-Id: <15f39911.3578196d@aol.com>
To: sean.mcdermott@fmr.com
Cc: Telford001@aol.com, HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/180
In a message dated 6/5/98 11:43:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sean.mcdermott@fmr.com writes:

> > > hmm..
>  > >  Wouldnt a prior work be tunneling HTTP through SSL, as
>  > >  originated by Netscape ?
>  > >  This is how https works...
>  > Protocol tunnels have been used for at least twenty
>  > years.  Hard to believe IBM's develop is non-obvious
>  > to someone skilled in the art or that it constitutes a
>  > new combination of old ideas.
>  But the patent seems only to apply to:
>  "a method of increasing the performance"
>  Protocol tunnels for security/routing reasons wouldn't be
>  applicable here.
>  I guess tunnelling over SSL doesn't apply since there is
>  certainly no performance enhancement.
>  To prove a prior work you need to find an example of
>  tunnelling over a protocol which dynamically compresses??
>  Does AppleTalk compress?
>  Obviously there are other ways to increase the performance
>  other than compress - to use a different protocol than TCP/IP..

>  Anyway, is it true to say, if any performance improvements
>  are introduced *into* the HTTP standard, this patent doesn't
>  apply?

Tunneling IPX over IP being compressed onto a WAN like
sounds hardly different.  If I am not mistaken, Cisco brouters,
ACC brouters and <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Telford001/">TTT's own VLAN
Router</A> have such capabilities.

Joachim Martillo
Received on Friday, 5 June 1998 09:16:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC