Subject: Re: Revised proposal

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:40:55 -0400

Andrea wrote on 09/19/2002 02:48:59 PM:
> I simply added: we may want to leave: the CS MUST support 
> GET-CAPABILITY, the CUA MAY.

Im with Doug on this and think that it MUST for both is probably the best 
thing to do.  Its not that a burden on a CUA coder to do it and it may 
actually be useful/necessary as CAP develops/expands.

A good example why MUST is best:
CUA1 puts a very robust entry (ie:ATTACHments and ALTREPs galore) into the 
calendar.  The CS is multiparty savy and saves the data as given.  The CU 
uses a different CUA (or a 'newer' CUA or 'evaluation trys' or...) to 
retrieve their data.  If the CS blindly sends back the multipart data to 
the CUA that cannot handle multipart data (ie: no ALTREPs or non-inlined 
ATTACHments) then the CUA may have big problems that prevent the CU from 
correctly seeing their existing data.

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: Andrea Campi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:59:44 +0200

> actually be useful/necessary as CAP develops/expands.

Agreed, it's not that a burder on the programmer, but it would be a
waste of time in a scenario like I descrived (CGI interface). Anyway,
as I said: I will go with the majority.

> correctly seeing their existing data.

Sorry but I don't get it. We have agreed that the CS and the CUA
must negotiate multipart capabilities, right? I was merely proposed
that, if a CS sends a GET-CAPABILITY to the CUA and it gets back
an error, it MUST assume all capabilities are default - which for
multipart happens to be "no multipart".

In your example, the CS can't blindly send back the multipart data,
because the new CUA told it it doesn't support it - it doesn't
matter whether it told it explicitely (by replying to GET-CAPABILITY)
or implicitely (by not replying).

Bye,
	Andrea

-- 
Andrea Campi                              mailto:[email-masked]
I.NET S.p.A. - BT Ignite                  http://www.inet.it
Technical Dept. - R&D			  phone: +39 02 32863 ext 1
v. Darwin, 85 - I-20019			  fax: +39 02 32863 ext 7705
Settimo Milanese (MI), Italy