Re: NEW SECTION: BEEP Considerations

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marshall Rose wrote:
> 
> > I don't follow. Are you saying "I am right - no problem",
> > or are you saying "cap is right - no problem" ?
> 
> what i'm saying is that the text you proposed makes things less clear
> rather than more clear. if your concern is that the use of the terms
> "packet" or "frame" in the cap spec is confusing to people who know beep,
> then use the term "message" instead.

Okay. But I am still confused. So let me ask the question
directly.

If as part of a CAP reply, the CS calls a BEEP API to send a
100MB message. BEEP can split and send it into multiple ANS
messages? Correct?

So we should not mandate that 100% of all CAP objects
fit into exactly one MSG, RPY, or ANS message. Correct?

BTW - I ordered you O'Reilly BEEP book from Amazon - I am 
anxiously awaiting its release. I hope it helps all CALSCH
implementers understand BEEP.

begin:vcard 
n:Royer;Doug
tel;pager:pager@xxxxxxxxx
tel;cell:208-520-4044
tel;fax:866-594-8574
tel;work:866-594-8574
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://Royer.com/People/Doug
org:INET-Consulting LLC <http://INET-Consulting.com>
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Doug@xxxxxxxxx
title:Chief Executive Manager
x-mozilla-cpt:;-8832
fn:Doug Royer
end:vcard