Re: CAP Capabilities

[sman@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Mansour)]

Doug Royer wrote:

> > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:11:05 -0700
> > From: sman@netscape.com (Steve Mansour)
> >
> > >
> > > > What do people think of this?  Any other options to consider?
> > >
> > > I don't see a conflict.
> > >
> > > Commands replies have 2 parts, the protocol reply, and optional
> > > application reply:
> > >
> > >         CUA: AUTHENTICATE .....
> > >         CS:  2.0 <or what ever is a valid reply>

this will be multi-lined if we return transport level capabilities

>
> > >         CS:  <MIME OBJECT>
> > >         CS:  BEGIN: ...
> > >         CS:  ...
> > >         CS:  END: ...
> > >
> > > The 2.0 is the protocol reply, the MIME object that contains a
> > > BEGIN ... END is the optional application reply.
> > >
> > > Other commands have application data, that's the point of sending
> > > a command. Correct?
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > The concern was that in response to a transport command, we're returning both
> > transport data as well as application data.
>
> Yes - the transport command is AUTHENTICATE or SENDDATA, what's the
> difference? Both return application data. I see this as consistency.

sounds good.

The transport level response would be multi-line here, and so would the application
level response. We don't have a syntax for that yet. I suppose it shouldn't be too
bad to come up with something.

-Steve
begin:vcard 
n:Mansour;Steve
tel;fax:650.937.2103
tel;work:650.937.2378
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Netscape
adr:version:2.1;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sman@netscape.com
title:Judge, Jury, and Executioner
fn:Steve Mansour
end:vcard