Doug wrote on 01/24/2003 12:40:50 PM: > > If a CUA does not support latency then just how would it be able to > > control/stop a command it issued? ... > Many PDAs for example have a time out or alarm then they simply > assume the remote end is not responding.
Ok, Im trying to not be dense but your PDA w/alarms CAN do latency since it obviously has the ability to deal with time outs, etc. Is there a real case where a CUA does NOT have this ability and is it a likely candidate for hosting something as robust as CAP? (Ok I digress a bit but it helps me think sometimes...)
> They do not want the > user to have to wait for another time out period sending > an ABORT that may also time out because the other endpoint > is down.
Umm, network disconnects were not part of this discussion so far; lets keep it simple and just focus on the case of controlling unbounded commands.
My point is that they do not have that kind of control. You have no choice - on alarm the BEEP connection is terminated and you can not get in side of it and send an ABORT.
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug@xxxxxxxxx | Office: (208)612-INET
http://Royer.com/People/Doug | Fax: (866)594-8574
| Cell: (208)520-4044Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature