Yes. I thought you were saying that the profile information was being sent in different sequences or something by the two implementations.
So far I have not tried to interoperate with any other CAP implementation. And I would not call myself a BEEP expert.
So do you have proposed text to solve the cap-bug you filed? :-) I am still trying to figure out if I got BEEP right.
--I think it was when the client sent the start message for the cap profile channel, it wasn't expecting a response from the server. It would want to send the start message, then immediately start sending CAP messages. It didn't know how to handle the response from the start message.
C: Content-Type: application/beep+XL C: C: <start number='3'> C: <profile Uri='HTTP://iana.org/beep/cap/1.0'/> C: </start
( the client wasn't able to handle this response from the server) S: Content-Type: application/beep+xml S: S: <profile uri='http://iana.org/beep/cap/1.0'> S: <![CDATA[<blob status='complete'/>]]> S: </profile>
Is that what you are asking? Preston
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug@xxxxxxxxx | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug | Fax: (866)594-8574
| Cell: (208)520-4044Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature