Subject: Re: CAP issue: Fallback/fanout to iTIP

From: "David L. Nicol" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:25:33 -0500

John Stracke wrote:
> 
>  Either the servers trust each
> other, or the server doing fanout has to be able to exercise the user's
> credentials on the remote server. 

Does the event definition language include a way to say,
"This event belongs to [email-masked]" even though the
session belongs to [email-masked]?  If it does, implementing
fanout in terms of putative users who have been given access rights
to post events that are owned by others would be relatively easy.

---

From: "Paul B. Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:11:11 -0400

> > So... any opinions on whether or not to try to keep fanout in CAP ?
> > John?    Anybody?
>

I thought this was proposed in San Diego during hallway conversations and
that we had an action item to make the change to the draft and bring the
result to the list. My impression is that any of the working groups that are
dealing with authorization issues across traditional security boundaries are
having a really tough job of approaching consensus, or even nailing down
their requirements.

Paul