Subject: Re: [Ietf-calsify] VALARM

From: Sam Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 22:32:28 -0500

Quoting [email-masked], on Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 04:23:34PM -0600:
> 
> (On the CALSIFY mailing list we are talking about the next rev of 244[567].)
> 
> Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
> 
> >....
> >
> >I have nothing against VALARM per se, but I am skeptical of including 
> >anything in the base standard that isn't needed for data interchange 
> >between heterogeneous systems, because such transport is the most 
> >important problem we are trying to solve.  In the case of VALARM, the 
> >thin client CalDav example is fairly compelling, but even there I see 
> >it as belonging in a separate spec that describes user-side concepts.
> 
> 
> It is needed so CUA from vendor A can set an alarm in CS vendor B product.
> MANY implementations discard objects they do not know. Without
> a standardized VALARM, you can't set one. Your talking about access control
> on the VALARM objects. And it is needed so that CUA from vendor A can see an
> alarm in the CS.

I agree with Doug.

Nate seems to be thinking that the base files are only for sending from
one user to another. This is not the case. When theres a widely adopted
real-time calendar protocol, it will be even less the case.

I want access to my calendaring information from anywhere that I am,
using whatever my local client is, and that means central storage. I've
implemented iCalendar primarily so that I can connect my disparate
calendar sources together, because they don't talk well together. If the
alarms were represented differently, it would be terrible.

And alarms are critical to calendaring, I don't want to have to stare at
my calendar all day, if something comes up, I want my client to notify
me, wherever I am, with whatever client I am using.

> >(Personally, I want to be able to set an alarm for myself, but I don't 
> >want anyone else to set an alarm for *me*.)  -- Nathaniel

Thats a very personal desire. Me, I want my wife to be able to set
alarms for me.

> Without VALARM - how would you set a VALARM in a CS were both
> the CUA and CS were not the same vendor, unless there was a standard
> way to set the alarm?
> 
> Your talking about access control on the VALARM objects.
> 
> I do not care if VALARM is a separate draft from the others or not.
> I do think many implementations will break if there is not a 
> standardized alarm.

Absolutely.

Sam