Subject: Re: CAP TODO - CRISP

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:40:40 -0500

Doug Royer wrote:

>How about if a server sends out CRISP and not CAPVERSION, then
>it is a CRISP server and not a CAP server.

Mmm...we can do that.  Then CRISP clients just have to know that a server 
that replies with CAPVERSION is a legitimate CRISP server even if it 
doesn't send a CRISP capability.  (See, if you have a CRISP client, it 
should be able to talk to a regular CAP server; capabilities negotiation 
aside, CRISP is a subset of CAP.)

If people agree with this approach, I can update the CRISP draft.  We will 
still need changes to the CAP draft, to mention that "CRISP=1.0" is a 
legitimate alternative to "CAPVERSION=1.0, CAR=..., QUERYLEVEL=...".

/=================================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer              |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.         |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.         |
|=================================================================|
|Amazing Fact: If there are three cats in a room, they will form a|
|triangle!                                                        |
\=================================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:20:12 -0700

> legitimate alternative to "CAPVERSION=1.0, CAR=..., QUERYLEVEL=...".

We can not mention CRISP in CAP unless they both go through the
IETF process together.