Subject: Re: CAP: Consensus?: Order In Which Scheduled Components Are Processed IsSpecified In iTIP

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:03:50 -0500

>I think we should not rely on just saying "Go read Section x.x.x of
>iTIP on sequencing AND then also do...".  I would suggest that we
>directly include the full text we want in CAP so that its centralized
>and easily found.  It also allows us to make sure we have no disjoins
>between what appears in iTIP and what may change for CAP.

But that would imply that an iTIP conversation with a CAP server might 
require different behavior than with another version of iTIP.  That would 
break the "transport-independent" part of the iTIP design (and name), 
forcing us to add "quasi-" before the "Independent" part...and I don't 
want to have to pronounce "iTQIP".  ;-)

Even if we don't want to change anything for CAP, we should use iTIP by 
reference, rather than copying text, because someday we may need to change 
iTIP; we don't want to have to rev both RFCs at the same time.

/=================================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer              |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.         |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.         |
|=================================================================|
|"How can one conceive of a one party system in a country that has|
|over 200 varieties of cheese?" --Charles de Gaulle               |
\=================================================================/

---

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:55:18 -0500

>> break the "transport-independent" part of the iTIP design [Snip, snip]
>
>Not sure where you got that from.

Either the ordering rules are meant to be the same either way (in which 
case copying the text is a Bad Thing--just like copying code, it increases 
the maintenance costs), or iTIP over CAP is different from, say, iMIP.

>I think you are treating CAP as a binding of iTIP (ala iRIP) and thats 
not a valid comparison. 

On the contrary; we've agreed ever since the Oslo meeting that CAP can be 
used as an iTIP binding: it can carry iTIP messages from CU A's CUA to CU 
B's CS, where CU B's CUA will pick them up.  That's why we've got CRISP, 
instead of resurrecting iRIP.

/=============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer          |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.     |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.     |
|=============================================================|
|Rope is rope, and string is string, and never the twine shall|
|meet.                                                        |
\=============================================================/