- From: <Telford001@aol.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:14:36 EDT
- To: sean.mcdermott@fmr.com
- Cc: Telford001@aol.com, HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
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