Wireless Application Protocol Henrik Saksela Introduction - - PDF document

Wireless Application Protocol

Henrik Saksela

Introduction

• Motivation

– ”WAP is positioned at the convergence of three rapidly evolving network technologies: wireless data, telephony, and the Internet” – ”The WAP specifications address mobile network characteristics and operator needs by adapting existing network technology to the special requirements of mass-market, hand- held wireless data devices and by introducing new technology where appropriate”

History

• HDML by Unwired Planet – 1995-1997
• WAP Forum established – 1997

– Unwired Planet, Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola

• WAP 1.0 – 1997

– WAP 1.1 – 1999 – WAP 1.2 – 1999

• WAP 2.0 – 2001

7110 - first WAP phone by Nokia

WAP 1.0, 1.1

• Design considerations

– Limitations in mobile terminals

• Inefficient CPU, little memory, small displays, numeric input pad

– Limitations in the mobile network connections

• Low bandwidth, high latency
• Other requirements

– Layered, scalable, extensible architecture – Support for as many wireless networks as possible

• How to achieve this?

– Tweak existing protocols / re-invent everything

WAP 1.1 Architecture

WML, WMLScript, WTA, Content formats ~HTTP/1.1 + state Transaction services

Integrity, Privacy, Authentication, DOS protection

~UDP

WAP stack Web Server WAP Gateway

HTTP SSL TCP IP WTP WTLS WDP Bearer WSP Apache HTTP SSL TCP IP

Session Layer (WSP) Application Layer (WAE) Transaction Layer (WTP) Security Layer (WTLS) Transport Layer (WDP) Bearers: GSM, IS-136, CDMA, PHS, CDPD, PDC-P, iDEN, FLEX, etc…

Problems with first generation of WAP

• Protocol criticism

– Excessive re-invention in the name of wireless – WAP not chosen on technical merits – it was the only alternative – Contrary to claims, not

• pen protocol – only WAP

forum members allowed to participate in process – Specifications not published as RFC – Specifications subject to change without notice – Patent restrictions

• Lack of adoption due to

– High costs – Miserable usability – No killer app

• Personal experience

– Everything cost money, same services available for free on regular internet – Lack of content

WAP 2.0 – the second coming of WAP

• WML dropped in favor of XHTML Basic

extension, XHTML Mobile Profile

• CSS Mobile Profile, subset of CSS 2
• Mobile profiles of HTTP, TLS, TCP replace

first generation WAP stack

• Additional services

– MMS

WAP 2.0 Architecture

Service Discovery Security Services Application Framework Protocol Framework EFI Provisioning Navigation Discovery Service Lookup Crypto Libraries Auth Identity PKI Secure Transport Secure Bearer Multimedia Messaging Content Formats Push WAE/WTA User-Agent

Session Services Capability Negotiation Cookies Sync Push-OTA Hypermedia Transfer Transfer Services Transport Services Streaming Message Transfer Datagrams Connections Bearer Services IPv4 IPv6 SMS USSD GHOST GUTS FLEX ReFLEX SDS MPAK

WAP 2.0 adoption

• WAP 2.0 overcame many
• f the problems in the

earlier version

– Partly because of general advances in technology: packet switching, more efficient devices, color displays

• People use WAP features

without knowing it

– MMS – Device provisioning

• Still, mobile browsing isn’t

experiencing phenomenal growth

mobile internet usage in Britain

source: Mobile Data Association

Big in Japan

• Wireless internet services have enjoyed enormous

success in Japan

• I-mode 46M subscribers as of Q3/06
• 29,5% of NTT DoCoMO ARPU
• What differs from Europe / WAP?

– I-mode ecosystem, business model

• NTT DoCoMo – single company wields control over devices,

infrastructure, services

• Packet switched services from the beginning

– Large single market – Smaller penetration of desktop internet services expectations for handheld internet not preconceived – Success not isolated to I-mode – competitors have launched hugely successful WAP-based services based on the same concept

What does the future hold?

• Where can WAP go from here?

– Adoption of full W3C standards – complete mobile browser (á la S60 browser, Opera)

• Competition

– I-mode – Network-enabled J2ME applications

• Opera Mini
• Omat Lähdöt (HKL timetables)
• Google Maps, GMail
• What advantage does WAP have?

– Over I-mode? None – Over J2ME? WAP proxy enables authentication billing content services!

• Media services in line with MMS

– Push e-mail

• Is WAP dead?

– Not yet, but it will complement rather than replace true mobile WWW browsing & J2ME- based services – In the long term, as handsets move closer to computers in functionality WAP will probably become irrelevant.