Title: Message
My personal feeling is that the current focus of the
TC should be on fixing the problems with CAP V1.0 and getting as rapidly as
possible to a CAP V.next rather than taking actions that would encourage anyone
to actually implement CAP V1.0. An implementation guide is going to encourage
the wrong thing.
The problem here is that many of the agencies and
implementers that may build CAP V1.0 implementations have very constrained
budgets or attention spans. If a CAP V.next comes out shortly after they
implement the V1.0 stuff, or, even after they begin to implement, it is
exceptionally unlikely that they will be able to or willing to upgrade to the
fixed specification in a timely fashion. It is also quite possible that if CAP
V.next follows shortly after CAP V1.0, people who begin to work with V1.0 are
likely to decide that the spec is too volatile to be trusted. Thus, efforts to
get folk to build with CAP V1.0 will simply guarantee that it remains in
use in the wild for many years or could end detracting from the long-term
acceptance of CAP.
With many protocols, having multiple versions in the wild
is simply a nuisance, however, with something as critical as CAP, having
multiple versions of the protocol could be very dangerous.
I would strongly suggest that work on the implementation
guide be targeted for release with CAP V.next. Thus, until the current issues
with CAP are resolved, any development on the implementation guide should be
focused on general principles, concepts, etc. rather than material which is
likely to be CAP V1.0 dependent.
bob wyman
