[CAP] handling optional fields

[Rex Buddenberg]

On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 09:51 -0700, Art Botterell wrote:

> 
> My hope is that we will, in fact, put a stake in the ground and say  
> "The spec is the spec, and what diverges from the spec isn't CAP."   
> The optionalities in CAP were provided to avoid forcing senders to  
> fill their messages with empty fields where particular items of  
> information aren't available (e.g., an individual sensor report might  
> have a description but offer no instruction... not a good practice  
> for public warnings, but maybe appropriate in a narrower  
> application.)  Those optionalities were never intended as an  
> invitation for each implementer to redefine the meanings of fields.
> 
> - Art

Art,

The other standards that I tangle with daily come paired with
certification bodies.  For example IEEE 802.16 committee defines the
standard; it's matching industry association is WiMAX which handles a
certification process.  Ditto for 802.11 and WiFi.  
	It strikes me that CAP, as a standard, lacks the other half of the
balance -- a certification organization.



> _______________________________________________
> This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> CAP-list mailing list
> CAP-list at lists.incident.com
> http://eastpac.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
> 
> This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.