comment on CAP Requirements, "low end" target platforms

["Paul B. Hill" <pbh@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Although I agree with the goal of insuring that CAP be useable on "low end"
platforms such as PDAs, pagers, and cell phones, I do have some concerns
about the wording in the current CAP Requirements draft.

The capabilities of small devices changes over time. Rather than having
text like, "For example, a cell phone MUST be able to act as a CUA."
[section 4.1,page 8], could we instead use some firm meterics? By "cell
phone" do the editors mean a Star-Tac or a Communicator 9000? Why not
instead choose a benchmark for processing and memory requirements that
seems reasonable. It seems to me that this will give us a much better
chance of determining if we've met our goals.

Section 4.2.4 contains an interesting paragraph when considered in
conjunction the sentence quoted previously:

   CAP MUST provide a way to determine the results of delayed
   operations. Delayed operations arise from the use of other protocols
   (IMIP, IRIP), which may take a long time to resolve. Delayed
   operations have a return code and may have associated calendar data.
   As an example, an ITIP request for free/busy information may result
   in the delivery of a VFREEBUSY component. A CUA MUST be able to use
   CAP to retrieve the VFREEBUSY component. If the operation failed, the
   CUA MUST be able to determine the reply code. It is an open issue
   whether CAP MUST support delayed operations and what that means, and
   how results are returned.

Do you really want to do this on a cell phone? 

Paul