Subject: Re: CAP: BEEP / better layer separation (Was: Re: CAP: Registration of new MIME media type application/cap+xml)

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:04:57 -0500

>I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "better
>layer separation".

If CAP is defined as exchanging iCalendar messages, like iTIP, then it 
becomes easier to move onto different substrates.

>CAP is defined as a BEEP [RFC 3080] profile, and rely on
>the mapping of BEEP onto TCP [RFC 3081]. To run CAP over
>another protocol, one simply needs to rely on a different
>mapping of BEEP.

Oh, there is that; that would be more useful.

/============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer         |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.    |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.    |
|============================================================|
|In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is in therapy.|
\============================================================/

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:52:56 -0500

> becomes easier to move onto different substrates.

Thanks for the clarification.  You should note though that CAP,
unlike iTIP, is not defined as exchanging iCalendar messages.
CAP is simply a protocol that permits CUA to access an iCalendar
based Calendar Store.  CAP is an access protocol, iTIP is not.

Cheers,
Bernard
-- 
Bernard Desruisseaux                    mailto:[email-masked]
Research & Development                  Tel.  : +1 514 733-8500 x4213
Steltor                                 Fax   : +1 514 733-8878