Subject: Re: 12.2 BEEP Exchange Styles

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:24:49 -0500

Andrea posited on 12/17/2002 04:48:48 AM:
>    A CAP request, targeted at more than one containers, MAY use a one-
>    to-many exchange, with a distinct answer associated with each target.
>    CAP request targeted at a single container MAY use a one-to-one
>    exchange or a one-to-many exchange.
> 
> Maybe it's me, but I don't understand if the difference in the
> wording between the two sentences is intentional. 

Perhaps stated this way it may help.  If targeting more than one container 
there really should (MUST??) be a one-to-many exchange (the many being 
responses per each targeted container).  I would NOT expect a one-to-one 
exchange when targeting multiple containers really.  If targeting a single 
container then a one-to-one or one-to-many exchange may happen for the 
obvious reasons.

Is there any case where multiple targets would really yield a single, 
combined response to form a one-to-one exchange?  If not then the verbage 
in the draft should change to MUST.  I for one would always expect 
multiple targets to result in a one-to-many exchange, even if all were 
identical failures.  Much more logical and simple IMHO.

> If it is, however, then I don't understand the first one. Is it
> supposed to be a MUST?

I agree.

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...