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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:36:15 -0500

John digressed on 02/25/2002 01:03:50 PM:
> 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 [Snip, snip]

Not sure where you got that from.  If my CUA speaks CAP and iTIP and the 
rules for ordering entries received via iTIP changes, how is that a 
problem w/CAP??  I think you are treating CAP as a binding of iTIP (ala 
iRIP) and thats not a valid comparison.

Since Section 2.1.5 of iTIP is ~1 page, I dont see why explicit inclusion 
of it (w/the proper updates/changes for CAP) is a bad thing.  Its not like 
Im saying that we need to include all the restriction tables of iTIP or 
anything...  Its logical to include it in CAP since the sequencing rules 
are for CAP and may (or may not) require some tweaking to deal w/the CAP 
design.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:39:10 -0700

> 
> > 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
> > [Snip, snip]
> 
> Not sure where you got that from.  If my CUA speaks CAP and iTIP and
> the rules for ordering entries received via iTIP changes, how is that
> a problem w/CAP??  I think you are treating CAP as a binding of iTIP
> (ala iRIP) and thats not a valid comparison.

If you recall - we dropped iRIP and added the iRIP iTIP processing
into CAP. Part of CAP is iTIP. All iTIP objects are valid in CAP
and mean the same thing. 

CAP is a transport for iTIP. Your CUA can deposit iTIP objects
into CAP. My CUA gets the iTIP objects out. And processes them
the same as any other iTIP objects.