Re: CAP TODO: single threaded

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

John Stracke wrote:
> 
> >However, the WG decided for bounded latency a long time ago.
> 
> I actually can't find such a decision in the archives.  Key points:

It pre-dates CAP when there was iRIP and the proposal
for an HTTP based CAP.

When iRIP went away, the agreement with the iRIP proponents
was the it remain in CAP. I know it was a discussion, but it
was a long time ago.

The real issue here is that we can't keep re-opening old
issues if we want CAP out the door. We are removing the CAP
transport in favor of BXXP, and that is a good thing. I understand
that BXXP might have issues with bound latency, we could do
in the in data (vs transport). Or we could drop it. But
we really need to be careful not to just keep reopening old
issues just because we don't like them.

-Doug

begin:vcard 
n:Royer;Doug
tel;cell:208-520-4044
tel;fax:208-552-1179
tel;work:208-520-4044
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://Royer.com/People/Doug
org:INET-Consulting LLC
version:2.1
email;internet:Doug@xxxxxxxxx
title:Chief Executive Manager
adr;quoted-printable:;;1795 W. Broadway #266=0D=0A;Idaho Falls;ID;83402;USA
x-mozilla-cpt:;-1
fn:Doug Royer
end:vcard