Subject: QUERY-LEVEL vs CAR-LEVEL

From: Andrea Campi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:09:33 +0200

Hi all,

looking at section 9.3, definition of CS properties:

QUERY-LEVEL can take values CAL-QL-1 or NONE
CAR-LEVEL can take CAR-NONE, CAR-MIN, CAR-FULL-1.

This doesn't sound logical, exp. given that they are related
(QUERY-LEVEL:NONE imply CAR-LEVEL:CAR-NONE).
I propose we change NONE to CAL-QL-NONE.

Bye,
	Andrea

-- 
Andrea Campi                              mailto:[email-masked]
I.NET S.p.A.                              http://www.inet.it
Direzione Tecnica - R&D			  phone: +39 02 32863 ext 1
v. Darwin, 85 - I-20019			  fax: +39 02 32863 ext 7705
Settimo Milanese (MI), Italy

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:03:34 -0400

>(QUERY-LEVEL:NONE imply CAR-LEVEL:CAR-NONE).
I don't think it does, actually; it would probably be possible to have 
the ability to submit iTIP messages subject to access controls.

>I propose we change NONE to CAL-QL-NONE.
As the person who came up with NONE in the first place (for 
CRISP...which I need to update...), I don't have a problem with this.

-- 
/========================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer     |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
|========================================================|
|This is the .sig that says... Ni!                       |
\========================================================/

---

From: Andrea Campi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:51:54 +0200

> the ability to submit iTIP messages subject to access controls.

Well, the draft says:

   QUERY-LEVEL       1     Indicates level of SQL support. CAL-QL-1 or NONE.
                           (NONE is for CS's that allow ITIP methods only
                           to be deposited and nothing else). If set to
                           NONE, then the 'car' capability MUST BE set
                           to NONE.

The rational for this would be that VCAR are specified using a query
(the SCOPE property), so if you don't understand CAL-QL you can't
understand a full VCAR. On the other hand, I can imagine a server could
have at least DEFAULT-VCARS without necessarily using CAL-QL.
So yes, I agree with you and think that period should be reviewed.

Bye,
	Andrea

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 13:41:07 -0600

> CRISP...which I need to update...), I don't have a problem with this.

If there are no objections, I'll change it to CAL-QL-NONE