Subject: Minutes from DC meeting

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:12:06 -0500

The following minutes were sent to the IETF proceedings today. I've 
included them here because they are relatively short.
- - - - -
CAP Meeting Minutes, reported by Pat Egen. 

WE announced that an upcoming interop test was in the works.  It was noted 
that it will be scheduled for sometime in February (before the March 
meeting). 

The chair introduced Bob Mahoney from MIT as the new Co-Chair. 

There was next a discussion on the Guide to Implementors. 

Bob asked if anyone read the doc and a few people noted they had done so. 
He went over the purpose of the document and asked for more feedback, 
especially from developers.  What is missing.  This document is in the 
early versions.  Do we need to make a case for the Shoulds. He stated the 
next steps are to add more feedback.   A suggestion was that we really 
talk about "shoulds". 

Next we did a CAP draft update. 

The draft has grammatical errors that we will fix in 3 weeks.  There was a 
discussion about substantial updates. 

The State diagram has been updated.  Added were two commands.  Another 
major addition was SLP - service level protocol.  It's not done but major 
progress has been made.  Capability has gone back to the way it was in the 
original draft.  It's a separate command.  The copy and paste is 
incorrect. Other minor changes were made. 

Schedulable hours may be an issue we need to drop out.  Text needs to be 
worked out. 

Examples are inconsistent - we need to clean them up and make them 
consistent and we need better details. 

What's left.   

Some schema work needs to be completed and we need to nail vcommand and 
vcar.  We got several comments on calendar wrappers.  Someone (?) will 
send big example to the list. 

The query subset needs more work.  It's modeled after SQL.  Queries are 
non-trivial so we chose sql-like, rather than force implementors to force 
SQL implementation.  We came up with a subset.  Need to guarantee that 
queries look a certain way.  Need to put together a small set of queries. 

It was suggested that if someone has an SQL engine could they use it. 
Syntax is ical - structure is SQL.  There was a broad discussion about 
putting SQL in place. 

There still needs to be more work on the definition of Users - there are 
some definitions that need to be changed/added.  Add some examples and 
have done by 3 weeks. 

Issues found (Chris Newman):   

Idle timeout in protocol.  Need to add no-op command.  Forcing connection 
to remain open.  If you are running under tls connection may be expensive. 

Authenticate command - need to be able to return data when you have 
success.  Digest command. Need to put it in. 

DES Level 7.1.3 security.  Are we requiring.  Need to look at this item. 
Either have no security or require Triple DES. 

Error codes from Authenticate that may be useful - he will provide them 
(he = ??) 

Error text should be on all the examples - use short numonic.  Text will 
be optional..  As long as it is UTF8, it will be the local of the server. 
May need to state what the default language is on the server.  Command = 
sys text (make it logout or similar to other protocols). 

Some commands have a terminating "." - need to find something that the 
parser to handle it.  We were always going to terminate everything with a 
dot.  An acceptable thing would be you have a terminating DOT.  CRLF.. 

The create method may have a layoring violation.   You use senddata to do 
a create.  Multiple respond codes for different errors.  This is a 
layoring violation.  Have something on the senddata state how many of 
error responses. 

Other issues: 

Pipelineing - we started out tagging commands and then we talked about 
pipe-lining commands.  It may be going away.  Command ID is a remmnant of 
this.  Do we still need this or is everyone happy with no pipeline. The 
IMAP has pipeline from the beginning.  All the servers will run multiple 
scans simultaneously.  So Chris says that is not useful.  The ability for 
the server to return data unrelated to the command in process is helpful. 
It's not like "unsolicited".  We deferred notification.    IMAP is not 
notification - it's polling.  Look at IMPP issues to see what not to do.   

Unbounded recurrent sets - what should the options be for returning 
recurrent sets.  What should be returned?  One case - a server will expand 
to a bounded set and if you ask for vevent it is to get back every 
instance.  Another one would be to get back the original using rrule and 
leave it up to the client.  Or use the specific recurrence id.  Any 
thoughts?    A general discussion about recurrence.  One way is give me 
the rule and the other is give me the instances.  Smaller clients is an 
example of not needing the rules. 

A comment from the audience says it must be possible for the client to get 
it both ways. Microsoft's implementation experience is to do the expansion 
by default.   

Lisa asked for any implementation experience with CAP.  Doug says yes. 
Three separate implementations. 

Bob talked about extensions  - for example, SKI.  It should be in a 
separate group as an extension iCalendar.  Events are their focus.   I 
will resend it to the list. 

The meeting was adjorned. 

After the meeting was over, I and one of the editors approached the AD to 
ask for permission to hold one more interim meeting to finalize the 
remaining items for the draft.  Most of the work will be done prior to the 
meeting and we will use the meeting to complete the text and grammatical 
edits.  Permission was granted and I will post this to the list and to the 
Announce list. 

Minutes taken and submitted by Pat Egen.