Subject: Re: Synchronization [Was: Re: CAP: Last Call By March IETF: Need Volunteers!]

From: Mark Paterson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:37:32 -0500

At 02:11 PM 1/16/2002 -0500, you wrote:

> >   A CUA is able to query on the last modified
LAST-MODIFIED

> > property to find all the components that have changed the
last

> > time a sync was done. Using the METHOD:DELETE it can find
all

> > components that have been deleted. Is this
sufficient?

Yes. As you may have seen in the thread that's gone back and forth with
myself and Doug we can't seem to quite agree on the approach we each
would take to implement a sync CUA but that's OK, anyone implementing a
CUA is free to do as they wish. What is important is that both of us have
used queries using LAST-MODIFIED and METHOD:DELETE and both think CAP
lives up to the requirements.

> >   Should we add a small section or sub-section on
CAP

> > describing how synchronization can be done?

At first I thought that this would be a good idea. A few things like
being aware of deleted instances or special issues with respect to
processing ITIP objects for Sync CUAs might be useful to document . It is
very hard to do so however without sounding like a sync tutorial so I
think it best now that we not attempt such a section. CAP should not be
dictating how sync should be done. Let's leave this to other
organizations who specialize in this area.

I think we can agree that CAP can satisfy the sync requirements listed in
the CAP requirements documents and leave how to do so to the data
synchronisation solution implementors to figure out on their
own.

Thus, if there are no
objections, I will close the issue.

I believe that the issue can be closed if some text can be added to CAP
(perhaps where the delete command is documented) to indicate that the
delete command should not be used to zap booked entries. They should be
deleted using the modify command to mark them as METHOD:DELETE and as
Doug mentioned in his sync proposal, It is up to the CUA or CU and the CS
or CS administrator to decide when the METHOD:DELETE objects are to be
deleted from the CS. And this is not specified in CAP.

With this I think we can agree that this issue can be closed. We may not
be able to necessarily agree on how would implement things but I think we
have gone beyond the original goal which was simply to determine if we
think CAP lives up to the sync requirements that were written.

Agree?

George

--

Mark Paterson

Director, Client R&D

Steltor

mailto:[email-masked]

http://www.steltor.com

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:29:24 -0700

> At 02:11 PM 1/16/2002 -0500, you wrote:

(actually it was at:  Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:55:16 -0500,
 and was written by George Babics)

> > > >
> > > >   A CUA is able to query on the last modified LAST-MODIFIED
> > > > property to find all the components that have changed the last
> > > > time a sync was done. Using the METHOD:DELETE it can find all
> > > > components that have been deleted. Is this sufficient?
> 
> Yes. As you may have seen in the thread that's gone back and forth
> with myself and Doug we can't seem to quite agree on the approach we
> each would take to implement a sync CUA but that's OK, anyone
> implementing a CUA is free to do as they wish. What is important is
> that both of us have used queries using LAST-MODIFIED and
> METHOD:DELETE and both think CAP lives up to the requirements.

Not much has gone back and forth. I agree you can synchronize
with CAP.

I can agree with you and George to not have a synchronization section.
Does anyone disagree?