Subject: Re: CAP ABNF and external references

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 11:48:00 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

 > In any case CAP 1.0 09-submitted is unclear as to what it means when no
 > latency-param is specified and that needs to be rectified before it can
 > pass WG last call.

I'll add:

	If LATENCY is not specified, then the initiator is indicating
	that any timeouts are up to the responder.

 >  >                                                 It
 >  > does not stop the responder from responding earlier
 >  > and it does not stop the responder from sending some kind
 >  > of error before the timeout, both of which terminate
 >  > the command.
 >
 > This case is not described in 09-submitted and I think it needs to be
 > before this confusion can be considered resolved.  Section 10.1.1
 > Bounded Latency covers many permuations but there is no talk of
 > returning partial results.  This needs to be covered in text in 10.1.1
 > where latency is covered.

Sure it is:

     If a CS can both start sending the reply to a command and guarantee
     that all of the results can be sent from a command (short of
     something like network or power falure), prior to the "LATENCY"
     timeout value, then the "LETENCY" time has not expired.

    (the above text being re-writted see separate e-mail on this list)

Simply send a reply.

-- 

   Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
   -------------------------------|-----------------------------
   [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
   http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                  |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                  We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:56:19 -0500

>    that any timeouts are up to the responder.

That works (and you can ignore the like repsonse I sent on another thread 
a few min ago...).  Thanks.

>      timeout value, then the "LETENCY" time has not expired.

Sorry but that text does NOT cover partial results.  It clearly says 
"guarantee that _all_ of the results" (my emphasis) and that is definitely 
NOT partial results!  Perhaps you are thinking that "all results" simply 
indicate that its a partial result and that another try is necessary??.. 
(Please say no... Please!)

>     (the above text being re-writted see separate e-mail on this list)

The rewrite does address this concern so I think we are all set here 
(although we greatly digressed from the initial topic of ABNF and external 
refernces we did resolve an issue so its worth it).

FMI: Whats the new ABNF for latency-sec?  Did you use 1..(~68 years) or 
did you use something else?

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:08:33 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> Sorry but that text does NOT cover partial results. 

Please explain 'partial results' and where it is in the draft.

--