RE: [emergency] Public as responders (was RE: [emergency]...PPW l etter re CAP)

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

At 10:10 AM -0500 10/9/03, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I'm trying
>to understand in this thread what the requirement for
>supporting this suggested change would look like if
>or when it hits my desk.

Len, most likely... unless you're dealing with datacasting systems 
(satellite, digital radio or TV)... the proposed change wouldn't make 
any difference to you at all.

I'm sorry we've gotten so wrapped around process that we haven't 
gotten to the point of discussing a specific proposal, but the 
initial suggestion was that we offer a restricted option of a Base-64 
encoding inline for use ONLY on one-way (i.e., broadcast) data links 
WITH sufficient bandwidth.  (The MIME description field Carl mentions 
is already in our spec.)

An alternate proposal was that we mandate the use of a 
SOAP-with-Attachments message envelope in such cases... which would 
do the same thing with essentially the same bandwidth impact, albeit 
in a more complicated way.

But there's no reason why such a provision would need to have any 
impact on low-bandwidth systems or IP-network systems.  The inline 
(or SwA) format would only be supported when there was BOTH a one-way 
link and sufficient bandwidth to handle the binaries.

- Art