Subject: Transport data mixed with Application data?

From: [email-masked] (Steve Mansour)
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:31:59 -0700

Can anyone come up with an example of a CAP command that returns both
transport AND application level data? I don't think we have one yet.

Several of you spoke with me after the Oslo meeting and indicated that
the "capabilities" information we returned in the example we covered was
really all application-level data. I tend to agree with that.

The response to a CAP command currently has this general form:

     <replycode> ; text ;  more text  <CRLF>
     [<application-level-data>] <CRLF>.<CRLF>

If there's really a need to return transport level stuff in the same
reply, then we'll need to change it.

Please respond if you see a problem with this.

-Steve

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:44:14 -0700 (PDT)

> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 15:47:12 -0700
> From: [email-masked] (Steve Mansour)

> > Do you mean a response to a CAP command that returns both transport and
> > application data? Such as the response to the SENDDATA command?
> 
> Not exactly. Because the response to a SENDATA consists of a reply code and
> some application-level data.
> 
> The situation I'm looking for would be like if we determine that the
> capabilities really do have some amount of "transport-level" data  PLUS
> some amount of "application-level" data. For example, how would we handle
> the capabilities information if we determined that some were
> application-level (like MAXDATE and MINDATE) and some were transport-level
> (like AUTH)? How do we fashion a reply?
> 
> FYI, I'm pretty sure that this case doesn't exist. Like for the example
> above, I think all the capabilities will probably turn out to be
> application-level data. But if someone knows of some other case where a
> reply will clearly include some transport data and some application data,
> we should find out now.

I still think we need to define some terminology - I do not
think we are saying the same things.

The "CS: 2.0" is transport correct?
The "CS: mime..." is application correct?

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://playground.sun.com/~dougr
Pager:				[email-masked]
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL