Larry wrote on 01/30/2003 03:56:37 PM:
First Id like to say thanks for your POP3/IMAP/LDAP reply last week. It took a day to sink in but I finally got it and partly answered my own question in a different thread.
> It simplifies implementations. (You do want people to implement this, > right?) What happens if you submit a bounded command (3 seconds, > say), wait 3 seconds, and the server doesn't come back? What if it > doesn't come back in 30 seconds?
This is something the draft needs to cover (plus its not related to unbounded commands). Thanks for raising it.
> What if you submit an unbounded command, wait 1 second, submit a > CANCEL, and the server still hasn't replied in 30 seconds?
This assumes that we have some CANCEL command. Currently we do not nor has one been actually be proposed for inclusion yet.
Purpose: The "ABORT" command is sent to request that the named or only in process command be aborted. Latency MUST not be supplied with the "ABORT" command.
Use ABORT as it has no restriction that it can only be sent after a timeout.
Do you think that we need to have some kind of minimum latency values that CS's will accept so that they can tell CUAs "I dont care if you want results within 5 seconds, Im only going to guarantee a minimum response time of 30 seconds"?
Minimum latency - no. 20 years ago 56K direct internet was screaming fast. In 10 years 5 seconds may be too long. The CS can always send an error back when it can not handle the command.
Or perhaps you are thinking that bounded latency is too much to do and that it should be optional entirely (ie: All CAP commands follow the existing POP3/IMAP/LDAP/etc model of 'Its done when its done and if you dont want to wait then leave.")??
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