[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NEW SECTION: BEEP Considerations
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
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
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.
org:INET-Consulting LLC <http://INET-Consulting.com>
title:Chief Executive Manager