Subject: Re: GET-CAPABILITY - reply

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:48:50 -0500

Doug proposed on 22-Oct-2002:
>                               If the CUA does not support
>      sending a full reply and sends not-implemented error, then
>      the CS MUST assume the CUA supports the default values as
>      defined below. 

Are you adding explicit text to the draft to say that "A CUA MUST support 
the defaults if they return a not-implemented error" or some such 
requirement??  Otherwise you get the CS thinking all defaults are possible 
and the CUA thinking it doesnt have to do anything...

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: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:47:43 -0500

Doug replied with:
>        If TRUE then it expands multiple instances separately when they 
are
>        stored (RRULEs converted to RDATEs) and when sent. If FALSE then 
it
>        expands instances dynamically during sending. Default is FALSE.

One quick question: What does it matter if the expansion/conversion is 
when stored or when retrieved if its always done from the receivers point 
of view??

The FALSE description talks about "expands instances dynamically during 
sending" and TRUE says they are expanded "when they are stored".  However, 
from a retrieval point of view the they are expanded either way.  I 
suspect that the intent is not to specify a way for the CS to say "I save 
them expanded and return them expanded too" or "I dont save them expanded 
but I do return them expanded"; its to provide a means for one side to 
detect that some form of logical conversion has taken place.  That is, 
RRULE expansion/conversion into explicit RDATEs.  Is this correct?

Bruce

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:38:46 -0700

> Doug posited:
>  >      The default values apply only to a CUA when it does not support
>  >      sending a "GET-CAPABILITY" command reply. The following CS
>  >      properties are returned in response to a "GET-CAPABILITY" command:
> 
> Just to be clear:  If a CUA _does_ support GET-CAPABILITY then default 
> values are not allowed?  This is only the case if the CUA returns a 
> not-supported response code too, not a failure response code of some kind.

Thanks - I have changed the text to:

	When the CUA does not support sending a "GET-CAPABILITY"
	reply, then the CS MUST assume the defaults listed below.
	The following properties are returned in response to
	a "GET-CAPABILITY" command:

Better?

> Also, the use of CS in the last line is inappropriate if the CUA also 
> supports GET-CAPABILITY.  Simply striking it from the text seems to be 
> sufficient.

Done.