Re: CAP ABNF and external references

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> In any case CAP 1.0 09-submitted is unclear as to what it means when no
> latency-param is specified and that needs to be rectified before it can
> pass WG last call.

I'll add:

	If LATENCY is not specified, then the initiator is indicating
	that any timeouts are up to the responder.


>  >                                                 It
>  > does not stop the responder from responding earlier
>  > and it does not stop the responder from sending some kind
>  > of error before the timeout, both of which terminate
>  > the command.
>
> This case is not described in 09-submitted and I think it needs to be
> before this confusion can be considered resolved.  Section 10.1.1
> Bounded Latency covers many permuations but there is no talk of
> returning partial results.  This needs to be covered in text in 10.1.1
> where latency is covered.

Sure it is:

    If a CS can both start sending the reply to a command and guarantee
    that all of the results can be sent from a command (short of
    something like network or power falure), prior to the "LATENCY"
    timeout value, then the "LETENCY" time has not expired.

   (the above text being re-writted see separate e-mail on this list)

Simply send a reply.

--

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  Doug@xxxxxxxxx                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards